Featured

New US policy for West Asia: Israel-Pentagon duo targets Iran!

New US policy for West Asia: Israel-Pentagon duo targets Iran!
Dr. Abdul Ruff
_______

World’s attention has been focused on US policy toward Palestine vs. Israel ever since Donald Trump assumed the White House and his Jewish son o in law offering him elaborate cancelling service, almost free of cost, obviously, history has shown us, in favor of fascism and racism in Israel and against the Palestinians besieged between terror blockades erected by mighty nuclearized Israel and Egypt which is now ruled by military regime.
Already Trump’s son in law had his sway as Israeli PM Netanyahu with palms stained by blood of Palestinians, including children, was given a patient hearing by Trump in Washington. Hawkish Netanyahu seems have impressed Trump with his usual arguments to beware of not only both Arab world and Iran but also Turkey as all are harmful to their respective religious interests. Whether or not new President also fell into the fascist Jewish trap is not yet clear.
Like Obama, Trump has also said he has no intention of war on Iran. But Israel and Pentagon are still hoping to woo and force Trump to declare war on Iran.

Evolving policy

True, America is infested by powerful Jewish lobbyists and terror merchants who try to control US policies. For years now, US president have behaved like paid Jewish lords, by playing the balls according to Israeli rules.
Every president of USA openly declared US shield for Israel and promoted strong Israel-US ties. US presidents, who promote capitalist imperialism globally by misusing WB and IMF, etc, are essentially colonists by nature, pro-Zionists and anti-Islamists, and they one after another also fought for decades after the imposition of Israel in Mideast on Palestinian lands just, for the so-called “promised lands” because they claim god had pledged the “ holy lands” to them. Thus, now bold Jews in Israel have made Israel a fascist and criminal state that has nothing to do with holiness.
On the strength of their veto status, American imperialists and British colonialists have forcefully stolen the Palestinian lands in 1948 and given them to Jews who were busy terrorizing the Europeans. USA and Europe did everything possible to establish Israel as a fascist Jewish state in West Asia to threaten Arabs and Iranians. Israel-US ties, pampered by US presidents one after another for decades after the imposition of Israel in Mideast on Palestinian lands just because they claim the “promised lands”, have come to a stage where Israel could bypass
USA and UK also helped Israel acquire nukes illegally against the will of UN and IAEA. None in fact questioned the illegality of USA and Europe in that respect. Both USA and Europe sued Israel as a depot for their terror goods for sale to third world. They have come to a stage where Israel could bypass White House and have military deals with Pentagon directly and get the required terror goods and technology almost free of cost on a regular basis. That is the blanket permission the Pentagon has secured b form the White House officals to control US policies. Today no president can ignore Israeli demands routed through the Pentagon and pampered by the strong Jewish economic community, secured by Washington.

White House and have military deals with Pentagon directly and get the required terror goods and technology almost free of cost on a regular basis. That is the blanket permission the Pentagon has secured b form the White House officals to control US policies. Today no president can ignore Israeli demands routed through the Pentagon and pampered by the strong Jewish economic community, secured by Washington.

US godfather for Zionist fascists
Globally, Israeli interests are promoted and secured in media not just by Jewish community columnists, but by others, especially in USA, UK, and all English speaking countries. Many Hindu readers who hate Islam and think ill of Muslim brethren, for instance, consider the fascist-racist Jewish views as god’s own words mainly because that takes care of their anti-Muslim premises. .
With the ascendance of hawkish President Trump through due democratic process, along with his Jewish son in law and with erratic rhetoric targeting Muslims, among others, the Israeli regime, essentially pursuing criminal goals in Palestine and West Asia, is upbeat about its strong position in undermining human rights particularly in Palestine.
When former President Obama declaimed the Israeli demand to attack Iran so that entire Muslims world in the region is wrecked and only Israel remained strong and the only super power of the region after the USA to attack the besieged Palestinians, Israel was looking for opportunities under the next president’s (Trump) era. .
Israel lectures Trump that Iran is 100% an imperialist power as “Khamenei and the Ayatollah’s he represents” is nothing but a reincarnation of a modern day Cyrus or Xerxes from the old imperial Persia and that the USA is dealing with a resurgent Persia- a new regional power and so he should not hesitate to attack Iran without further delay for the sake of US security. Israel has a plan to attack Iran’s vital systems in order to cripple that nation as well and complete the ruin of West Asia where Israel would be an unchallenged modern monarch to dictate terms to the rest of the world. .
Israel refuses to go demilitarized and denuclearized as it wants to be the only nuclear power in West Asia to bully Arabs, Iran and new powers that cold challenge Israeli supremacy. Therefore, Israel tells, rather terrorizes, Trump that Iran would destroy USA, Arab world, all Saudi/ Kuwaiti/ Qatari/ UAE oil installations with its 100’s of thousands of ballistic missiles. Oil prices would go to $500/ barrel overnight, destroying the global economy. Then Israel leads USA into a deadly trap with Europe to end civilizational war in its favor and occupy entire world as their “promised” lands. .
The main reason the Israelis have not attacked Iran before this is because they would be unable to tolerate Iran’s closure of the Gulf of Hormuz that would make division in Israel and West links.
Backed by USA and Europe, are Israelis and US Jews not very super cleaver people? But why do they think US presidents are fools?

Pentagon-Israeli joint strategy

Even Palestinian child also knows that Israel, like USA is also is, eager to launch a bloody war to use its terror goods lying idle and countries like India does not buy all types of terror goods being manufactured in Israel, and to test the efficacy of the newly developed terror technologies.
Israel wants a US-Israeli joint war on Arab world and Iran in a sustained manner. Now Tel Aviv plays one against the others.
The top American commander in the Middle East, General Joseph Votel, branded Iran as the “greatest long-term threat to stability” in the region and called for steps, including military action, to disrupt and undermine Iranian influence and activities. Such use of military force would constitute an act of war, destroy the international nuclear deal struck with Iran in 2015 and set the Middle East on the path for another disastrous conflict. Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee, Votel, head of the US Central Command, denounced Iran for its “destabilising role” in the region.
The hypocrisy involved here is staggering. US Central Command has been the military instrument for the illegal US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan that devastated all of them, led to millions of casualties and profoundly destabilized the entire Middle East. With or without permission of Trump, It is currently escalating a renewed war in Iraq and is enmeshed in the bloody US regime-change operation that has destroyed much of Syria, as well as military attacks inside Yemen.
Significantly, Votel challenged the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and the so-called P5+1 group—the US, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany—that eased sanctions on Iran in return for severe restrictions on its nuclear programs. The general declared that the US had “not seen any improvement in Iran’s behavior” and claimed it still posed “credible threats” through its “nuclear weapons potential” and “robust” ballistic missile program.
Votel’s provocative remarks and calls for military action feed into the growing clamor in Washington for tough measures against Iran. In the same vein last month, then National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn responded to an Iranian missile test by denouncing Iran’s “destabilising behavior across the Middle East” and warned, “As of today we are officially putting Iran on notice.”

US hegemony

The aim of the criminal activities of US imperialism in the Middle East over the past quarter century has been precisely to ensure its own hegemonic role and helps Israel to assume role of West Asian hegemon. USA cannot tolerate if any challenge is thrown to side step Israeli supremacy in the region.
Among the main charges against Iran is its collaboration with Russia in propping up Syrian President Assad and more broadly in the Middle East. General Votel specifically referred to Iran’s growing relationship with Russia as posing concern. Russia and Iran worked together closely and with the Syrian armed forces to inflict a humiliating defeat on US proxy forces in the city of Aleppo. In an unprecedented move last year, Tehran gave Russian war planes access to one of its air bases to carry out operations inside Syria. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif announced that Russia would be able to use the country’s military bases on a “case by case basis” in carrying out the air war inside Syria. Among the other deals concluded was an agreement for Russia to build two new nuclear power plants in the city of Bushehr, the site of its first power reactor.
The growing ties between Moscow and Tehran are undoubtedly provoking deep resentment and hostility in Washington where it will further fuel the bitter infighting in the American ruling elite over foreign policy. US claims that Iran is destabilising the Middle East are matched by the denunciations of Putin and Russia for destabilising Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the world.

Washington has long regarded Iran as the chief regional obstacle to its dominance in the Middle East and Israel keeps fueling that anti-Iran and anti-Islam hatred in Washington. The reckless and provocative call by General Votel et al or the USA to use “military means” to “disrupt” Iran threatens to provoke a conflict that would not be confined to the Middle East but would draw in other nuclear-armed powers like Russia and engulf the world.
The USA and its allies have provided billions of dollars in arms to its surrogates in Syria, and elsewhere, to foment a civil war to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Knowing fully well that Israel remains the boss of the region, Votel still accuses Iran of wanting to be “the hegemon” in the region and being involved in “lethal aid facilitation.”

Israel and Pentagon seek tougher sanctions n Iran, diplomatic provocations, covert operations and military strikes. In the US Congress, hawkish senator Bob Corker hailed the bipartisan support last week for tough new sanctions against Iran in introducing the Countering Iran’s Destabilising Activities Bill that would effectively sink the 2015 nuclear deal known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The subversive mind is vividly visible as the legislation would brand Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corp as a terrorist organisation and allow the re-imposition of sanctions on Iranian entities lifted under the JCPOA—a move that Tehran would undoubtedly regard as an open breach.

There is madness among the imperialist leaders, including the military leaders, of the USA. When military generals whose forces have presided over the illegal invasion and destruction of whole middle eastern societies, and produced the deaths and refugee status of millions, talk about Iran ‘destabilizing’ the middle east, under the presumption that they represent a ‘stabilizing’ force, we are dealing with sociopaths or worse.. I don’t say any of this lightly. That such people control 20,000 nuclear weapons in the U.S. represents an existential threat to every worker, and every human being, on the planet. They, and their backers in the political establishment, the corporate media, and finance capital, have created too many flash points – the Middle East is just one, others include the Balkans and the placement of massed Nato troops at Russia borders, the coup-installed Ukrainian government with U.S. military backing, the South China sea with the ‘air-sea battle plan’ of the U.s. military preparing for war with China, et al.

Israel works on Trump’s earlier approach, hoping somehow to push him also into war. President Trump in the course of last year’s election campaign denounced the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran as “catastrophic for America, for Israel, and for the whole Middle East” and pledged to “dismantle the disastrous deal.” In a meeting last week with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, Trump again openly questioned the deal and declared that “nobody has been able to figure out” why President Obama signed it.

With Putin and Xi’s firm backing Iran and its proxies have savaged US proxies in Syria and completely destabilized Yemen. Next on the Iranian menu may be Bahrain and Saudi Qatif province (both Shia Muslim majority) where almost all the ME oil lies. Added to this Rouhani and Putin recently discussed getting involved in the Afghan end game and throwing out the USA from the region for good.

Russia and China have been keenly observing Iran over the years and know they are betting on a winning horse.
Israel says Trump will also blink, just like Obama did, realizing the gravity of losing the Middle East to Iran and he would will make a futile sales pitch soon to the Iranians. All these pentagon back door, on again/ off again few hundred or thousand ‘advisors’ deployments are a desperate bid to stay the course in a strategic debacle which is a slow realization of the beginning of the end of the American empire. The Pentagon knows the fight is over and it has been defeated. $5 trillion spent on ME wars and counting hasn’t swayed a defiant Iran. Sounds like Trump (in keeping up with his campaign rhetoric) might be the one to finally announce the defeat, cut the losses and pull out for good.
For American imperialism today Iran represents a real menace to their regional geopolitical interests most notably in Syria and elsewhere. However, in more recent years Saudi Arabia and Israel have played far more pernicious role in the region, and yet the American policymakers have always given their tacit approval on all their violations.

A very significant oil discovery has been made in the Southern part of the Golan Heights – which by rights should have been returned to Syria quite some time ago — Israel, is desperately trying to get the US to recognize Israeli sovereignty.

Observation
Israel thinks as the Jewish state occupying the Palestine lands and killing the Palestinians, promoting capitalist imperialism of USA and its western allies, it is the cleverest nation on earth. Most Americans pretend to buy that Jewish argument without any counter argument. When Trump with his lovely son in law form Israel, would also fall into that trap of Zionists, remains to be seen.
US Mideast policy is also in the interests of the US oil corporations (well, if it succeeded it would), and Israel is a piece of that strategy, a very important one (at least in the past) and so it was given some free-reins but Israel is not the dominant partner in that alliance.
Why should the top American commander in the Middle East, General Joseph Votel, branded Iran as the “greatest long-term threat to stability” in the region and called for steps, including military action, to disrupt and undermine Iranian influence and activities.’
Strangely, Israel finds it amazing that Iran under the cunning Ayatollahs despite being under sanctions for the last 38 years has managed to totally defeat the Zionists at their own game. Iraq is now firmly in the Iranian grip. The same is with Lebanon as well

Israelis bent upon attacking Iran. In any case, if military action is carried out by either Israel or US warmongers under current conditions against Iran then this would not weaken but will strengthen Iran. Part of the reason is that Iranian people would view this as an outright assault against their country, and thus would provide further legitimacy to the existing regime.

War with Iran, like the War on Terror, primarily serves the interests of Israeli imperialism, not exactly American imperialism. Apartheid Israel wants to partition the Muslim states into fragmented statelets, preferably fighting each other, so Israel can divide and ruin. The Israel Lobby largely controls US Mideast policy, the Neocons being largely a Zionist pressure group.

Fighting wars for Israel is not in the interests of humanity or America, but a war on Israel is. Unless the American people understand how US foreign policy is allowed to be controlled form Israel that the capitalist plutocracy contains a fraction of Zionists who support Israeli imperialism, the US people and leaders cannot oppose it as they are not capable of that.
Any opposition Zionist criminal regime is attacked simply as anti-Semitic by the Israeli Lobby and their US supporters. This is madness and bullshit, and should be denounced as such.
Opposition to apartheid Israel is a class issue, and should be stated explicitly when relevant.
Genocides, racism, apartheid are serious crimes the Zionist regime perpetrates as its key policy.
How far would President Trump be able to reign in Israel and how much would he help Palestine get its full statehood o form UN and how far would he able to help build a strong nation would delineate the parameters of Trump policy for Wet Asia.

Advertisements
Featured

India out. GST war on islam. Islamist leader Abdelilah Benkirane as Morocco Premier (write to: abdulruff_jnu@yahoo.com)

India run out.

GST war on islam.

Islamist leader Abdelilah Benkirane as Morocco Premier

-DR. ABDUL RUFF

abdulruff_jnu@yahoo.com

_________

Parliament in Rabat, Morocco, 20 November 2011

I – Poll

Moroccans have elected new lower house of parliament on 25 November, in the first national vote since the approval of constitutional reforms in July billed as laying the foundations for a fully-fledged constitutional monarchy. Moderate Islamists, as expected, did well the vote after a similar success in Tunisia’s first democratic election a month ago and the Justice and Development Party (PJD) emerged as the biggest party in Friday’s parliamentary elections.

The Justice and Development Party (PJD) took 107 seats out of the 395 in Parliament, almost twice as many as the second-place nationalist Istiqlal party, with 60 seats. The election was held more than a year early, after pro-democracy demonstrations swept the country earlier this year as part of the regionwide Arab Spring.

The leader of a moderate Islamist party Abdelilah Benkirane has been appointed by King Mohammed VI as Morocco’s new prime minister. Abdelilah will now hold talks on forming a coalition government.  His Justice and Development Party has not been in government before.

The PJD’s victory follows that of Tunisia’s Islamist Ennahda Party in an election there last month. Following elections, King Mohammed VI is for the first time obliged to choose the prime minister from the largest party, rather than naming whoever he pleases. King Mohammed received Benkirane, who is the PJD’s secretary general, in the mountain town of Midelt and named him head of government with the task of forming a new government.

Under a new constitution approved by referendum in July, the king has to choose a prime minister from the party that won the most seats. The constitution also gives the prime minister more powers to govern, but the king still has the final say on issues of defence, security and religion. The reforms were supported by all the main political parties, which called on their supporters to back the proposals in the referendum.

The 20 February movement, which spearheaded Morocco’s pro-democracy protests earlier this year, has called for a boycott of the elections, dismissing them as a “piece of theatre”. It says the constitutional changes approved in July are superficial, and perpetuate a “facade of democracy” that – it says – has disguised continuing royal rule for decades.

King Mohammed VI presented the constitutional changes as a far-reaching concession to Arab Spring-style pro-democracy protests, but activists believe they will do little to change the actual power structure and have called for a boycott of the elections. As a result of the constitutional changes approved by 98% of those voting in a 1 July referendum, the position of the prime minister, who must now be appointed from the largest party in parliament, has also been enhanced, gaining the authority to appoint government officials and dissolve parliament.  However, the parliament will have a greater share of power and – in theory – will play the leading role in a legislative process previously dominated by the king.

Benkirane, who was elected head of his party in 2008, leads its more pro-monarchy faction. He has repeatedly stated his support for a strong king, even though some of his colleagues would prefer a less powerful ruler. “The head of the state is king and no-one can govern without him,” he told supporters. The PJD has said it will promote Islamic finance. However, it has avoided focusing on issues such as alcohol and headscarves for women.

Many of the protesters who took to the streets in February feel the reforms still fall far short of their demands for a democratic, constitutional monarchy, and have called for a boycott. Ahead of the poll, the sleepy calm of the capital, Rabat, was occasionally punctuated by the marches of unemployed graduates. But the country’s powerful monarchy and the system that supports it appear to have averted any direct, mortal challenge for now.

A low turnout in the parliamentary poll would detract from the legitimacy of King Mohammed VI’s reforms and could hint at future problems.

II – Morocco

The Kingdom of Morocco is the most westerly of the North African countries known as the Maghreb. To the south, the status of Western Sahara remains unresolved. Morocco annexed the territory in 1975 and a guerrilla war with Algerian-backed pro-independence forces ended in 1991. UN efforts have failed to break the political deadlock. To the north, a dispute with Spain in 2002 over the tiny island of Perejil revived the issue of the sovereignty of Melilla and Ceuta. The small enclaves on the Mediterranean coast are surrounded by Morocco and have been administered by Madrid for centuries.

Strategically situated with both Atlantic and Mediterranean coastlines, but with a rugged mountainous interior, it stayed independent for centuries while developing a rich culture blended from Arab, Berber, European and African influences.  However, Morocco was a French protectorate from 1912 to 1956, when Sultan Mohammed became king. He was succeeded in 1961 by his son, Hassan II, who ruled for 38 years. He played a prominent role in the search for peace in the Middle East, given the large number of Israelis of Moroccan origin, but was criticized for suppressing domestic opposition. A truth commission set up to investigate human rights violations during Hassan’s reign confirmed nearly 10,000 cases, ranging from death in detention to forced exile. After his death in 1999 Hassan was succeeded by his son, who became King Mohammed VI and was seen as a modernizer. There has been some economic and social liberalization, but the monarch has retained sweeping powers.

King Mohammed is aided by a powerful propaganda machine – his image adorns streets and shops across the country. Central to the monarchical regime’s strength is its longevity – the Alaoui dynasty gained control of most of Morocco in 1664 – and its claim of descent from the Prophet Muhammad. The king has tremendous religious and political capital – it’s not just the king but the whole political establishment, the monarchy and the “makhzen” provide for the patronage network that embodies Morocco’s ruling elite.

Moroccan citizens, many of them poor and illiterate and living in rural areas, are made to believe that the monarch has a special gift or blessing and they feel that they have some psychological relationship with the king. Symbolic rituals also boost his status. In an annual ceremony of allegiance, the “bay’a”, Moroccan officials bow before the king as he parades on a horse.

Despite these traditional trappings, the monarchy under the 48-year-old king has taken on a more modern, reformist image. His father, Hassan II, ran a notoriously brutal regime between 1961 and 1999. Opponents were tortured and protests repressed.  1965, the interior minister at the time, Gen Mohammed Oufkir, supervised a crackdown on demonstrations in Casablanca from a helicopter while – according to one story – personally spraying rioters with a machine gun. But a process of gradual reform began in the final years of Hassan’s rule, and continued with his son. It included a family law that advanced women’s rights and a truth commission that explored abuses under King Hassan – though none of those responsible were prosecuted.

Along with Ennahda in Tunisia and the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in Turkey, it places itself within a contemporary movement to promote and respect Islam and reconcile Islam and democracy. Coalitions of more secular, royalist parties have tried to smother it and the Islamists have found it hard to directly challenge the king because of his religious status as “commander of the faithful”. It too is seen by many as being in the pocket of the palace. The PJD here in Morocco is presenting the ‘third way’ between revolution and the uncertainty of the current system.

The toppling of long-standing leaders in Tunisia and Egypt at the beginning of the year is widely seen as having caught the Moroccan regime off-guard, at a time when the reform process had stagnated. As Morocco’s own protest movement took shape, a long-held taboo was breached. It’s the first time in Morocco that the king was openly criticized and they didn’t shoot people. Instead, the monarchy’s response was to promise changes including rights guarantees and more powers for the parliament. These were enshrined in a new constitution that was approved by referendum in July.

III – Observations

Maybe, the Arab World is in the process of changing but Arabs still don’t know the results and what will happen in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria or Yemen especially the destruction of Libya by the NATO-UNSC terror organizations. The moderately Islamist Justice and Development Party (PJD), which has been buoyed by the recent reforms, and by the gains Islamists have made elsewhere in the region, could win the election and so supply the next prime minister.

Leaders of Morocco claim they are presenting the way of reform without losing the stability, the unity of the country- but at the same time furthering the democratic agenda of Morocco.

Morocco’s ruling elite thinks it has skillfully sidestepped the revolutionary fervor sweeping the Arab world by offering a milder, more peaceful vision of change. Critics of the reforms point in particular to the fact that the king will still have wide-ranging executive powers, in particular control over foreign, defence and security policy. Activists also say the reforms will not end the behind-the-scenes dominance of the “makhzen” – a power apparatus of veteran politicians, powerful businesspeople, the security forces and royal officials controlled by the king through a system of patronage.

Morocco is bidding for membership of the European Union, its main trade partner, but there appears to be little enthusiasm for this within the bloc.

Morocco has been given the status of non-Nato ally by Washington, which has praised its support for the US-led war on terror. After deadly suicide bombings in Casablanca in 2003, Morocco launched a crackdown on suspected Islamic militants.

The message of a democratic agenda and gradual change is one that has gone down well with Morocco’s allies in the anti-Islamic US and Europe who promote pro-west leaders in Muslim world and destabilize the Muslim nations if the leaders do not buy CIA terror gimmicks…

Political and poll bribery is common. Sheep were being handed out to voters, and over the last few months, the protest movement has been subject to a smear campaign, arrests, and intimidation at the hands of shadowy groups of pro-monarchy thugs known as “baltaja”. But Moroccans say they will show the Western world that Morocco can bring about a gentle revolution and the nation can travel towards a real democracy.

In Morocco elections are never decisive as the king retains ultimate control and though parliament has more power, parties are weak. The electoral system is prepared on purpose not to let anyone succeed, so it’s impossible to get more than 20% of the seats in parliament and this is to allow the monarchy to dominate. The manipulation of the party system is just one of the old-fashioned tactics still being deployed to bolster the status quo.  According to analysts, the reforms passed this year are largely cosmetic, and there is no guarantee they will be put into practice on the ground. However, so long as it plays the NATO fiddle well, it has got nothing to worry.

Claims, fake or real, of descent from the Prophet Muhammad (Peace) by a few pampered Muslim leaders might be fashionable but are ridiculous if they decline to promote true Islam in the society. Moroccan king clams the same of being a descent from the Prophet Muhammad but he shamelessly sides with NATO terrorism and western anti-Islamism. A Muslim nation that promotes anti-Islamism and helps, directly or otherwise, the anti-Islamic GST rogues and refuses to promote Islamic way of life and institutionalize Islamic law on daily basis ceases to be a Muslim nation.  Muslim leaders in such societies are guilty of anti-Islamic crimes.

Elected premier Islamist leader Abdelilah Benkirane, though worships the king, has a responsibly constructive role to play in this regard so that Islam takes firm roots in the society. Americans, Britishers and other western terrocrats cannot help him or Morocco in this regard. Benkirane’s pro-people policies and their proper implementation would greatly benefit not just Muslims but entire humanity in some measure.

Muhammad praying at the Ka’ba.

——–
د. عبد راف

Dr. Abdul Ruff, Specialist on State Terrorism; Educationalist;Chancellor-Founder of Centor for International Affairs(CIA); Independent Analyst;Chronicler of Foreign occupations & Freedom movements(Palestine,Kashmir, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Xinjiang, Chechnya, etc); Anti-Muslimism and anti-Islamism are more dangerous than “terrorism” Anti-Islamic forces & terrorists are using criminal elements for terrorizing the world and they in disguise are harming genuine interests of ordinary Muslims. Global media today, even in Muslim nations, are controlled by CIA  & other anti-Islamic agencies. Former university Teacher;/website:abdulruff.wordpress.com

Pakistan, Bangladesh should focus on sports!

Pakistan, Bangladesh  should focus on sports!

– Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

_____

World is witnessing as usual,  a pathetic Pakistani show at CWG Australia 2018.

Pakistan has already got its second bronze medal. at CWG Australia

Congratulations to Pakistani government and military lords.

Except in the most dangerous and extremely useless  Nukes Pakistan has not made any significant inroads virtually in anything: its economy is very weak though only the rich and corporate lords thrive at the cost of others  thanks to  the regime support for these sections of the society,  common people suffer without food and jobs,  sports are  ignored.  Aristocrats and rich corporate lords control the nation, Parliament and government. Pakistan might promote western capitalism and betray the poor and the nation and not Islam.

Pakistan would know that even a weak Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have at least one Silver each but the great nuke power Pakistan could not make even Silver so far.  Pakistani tally is with 3 bronze of today.

Why Pakistani government and military do not want to focus on and shine in sports as normal nation?  Generally military promotes sports and many military personnel take part and win medals but Pakistani military is not interested n sports or medals to boost the prestige of Pakistan as a modern nuke state.

In fact Muslim nations baring Iran do not exercise any credibility in sports

Even those few Pakistans who take part in sport events perform miserably and surrender meekly. Why?  When non Muslims treat Muslims as enemies and fight with vengeance and harshly while  fighting  Pakistanis in sports and win why not Pakistanis also  cultivate the enmity mindset to hit and win as for instance Indians do against Pakistanis?

That is unfortunate and shameful. .

Pakistani rival nuke power India is heavy with golds, silvers and bronzes and as it wants to get all medals of the event. it is eager to get as many medals as it managed when it organized CWG in Delhi by possible manipulations with UK help.

This time as well CWG host Australia seems to  be

helping India in a big way especially by  advertising  the Indian  color code blue  everywhere as the  umpires, support staff, many others have been  instructed to  sport  the blue color.

Obviously India  is best known to  take recourse in such gimmicks for medals. Medal tally has improved tremendously.

But Indian tally is useless as it lost its major sport – hockey  in both men and women, India did not get even bronze medal. India knows lose of hockey  negated all gold medals it managed in Australia. Unless in other sports wherein  weak nations like Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc participated, in hockey major players like Australia, England, New Zealand participated, they defeated India, and took away all medals.

In that sense India lost CWG in Australia.

The vigor and intent that is with Indians is missing with Pakistanis who take everything except promote US-NATO “terrorism” in a causal manner- is that not?

Pakistan regime spends most of its resources on military and rich fellows and has no money for sports and it does not ask for sports goods from USA and China as a part of service charges.

Pakistan is worse than even a banana state. weak economy, weak politics, weak foreign policy, weak military but has nukes, but for what?

In one thing Pakistan follows India. 

Both promote the rich and corporate lords and consider the rich as national asset and but the poor a waste and problem. 

 However, Indian concerns are for Hindus.  In fact, wanting to let the world know that it cares for Hindus would go all out  if a Hindu even beggar or criminal is suffering abroad. Even the foreign minister would  be sent to secure him while many Hindus say the farmers commit suicide in India for want of money or work or water jobs. 

India would never use nukes.

Pakistani over stress on India in terms of military and nukes is not good. Pakistan must get over fear of India and plan for the people of the nation for its future. . .

It is true India and USA have make Pakistan what it is today without nay propose and only responding to Indian threats and attacks by cross border fires but that exactly s Indian strategy to control Pakistan and keep it under developed and destabilized. .

imperialist USA used Pakistan to invade and destroy Afghanistan and now insults Pakistanis in the company of colonialist India.

Now Pakistan has taken China as a serious fiend and credible ally against India and USA but china hates Islam and kills and attack Muslims indoors. Beijing doesn’t allow basic freedoms of paying and fasting to its own Muslims. How can China be genuine ally of Islamic Pakistan especially when USA is there to control even China and Russia. Now all of them are in Syria as well for profits.

. .

Nukes and military maybe necessary but not more than for the sports and social development, economy, people’s well being.

Cricket is not sport and not everything. Cricket i s a gambling and matchfixed entertainment and  Pakistan and Bangladesh must get out of that mischief and take the real sport route.

Pakistan should have planning commission in sports to plan for the future of Pakistan. and to advise the regime on its real priorities.

Time is running out fast for Pakistan.  Nukes may not take care of the  prestige of Pakistan due course.

Yes, not only for Pakistan but for the entire Islamic world to take steps in creating infrastructure an personnel for sports.

———–


Meaningless Saudi-Iran rivalry – II

– Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

______

 

 

The trend of perceptual Saudi-Iran tensions amid deadly challenges from anti-Islamic forces across the globe is ridiculous and reflects their mutual insanity.

Already without a genuine global leader to properly guide the Muslims globally, Islamic nations are at a lose and in distress but with this “clash”  or what seems to be insanity global Muslims are facing vulnerable risks.

In a world now ontroleld by Israel and USA that lead the anti-Islamic tirade even while pretending to be friends of Saudi Arabia and Islam.

In fact, there are no other two nations – Christian or others – that fight like Saudi and Iran do for so long because these two top Muslim nations behave like jokers while non Muslim world has common sense and common purpose and agenda.  They indeed perceive and deal with Islam as their chief enemy and always discuss about these supposed enemies and take actions accordingly.

It’s true that Saudi Arabia and Iran are on opposite sides of an Islamic rift going back to the early decades of the faith in the 7th century. Sunnis — the majority branch of Islam — and Shiites are separated by a host of differences big and small, but it began with a dispute over Islamic leadership following the death of the prophet Muhammad. The BBC has compared the struggle between the two countries as a “version of the Thirty Years’ War, in which Catholic and Protestant states battled for supremacy in the 17th century.”

Sectarianism has certainly informed the foreign policy priorities of Iran and Saudi Arabia. Both countries have formed alliances with countries that share their version of Islam. But this isn’t simply, or even primarily, a religious struggle. It’s a political and economic one, a struggle for control of resources and dominance in a politically fraught region.

The Persian-Arab tensions have also harmed the process of establishment of Palestine state as Hamas and Fatah also been divided along Sunni-Shia lines and that is the main reasons why they fight each other and even consider each other as their main foe rather their oppressors colonialist Israel or fascist USA

Finally, the incumbent Zionist US president dictator Trump has cut open the mind of western world being anti-Islamic in essence and with his ultra fanatic declaration on Jerusalem threatening Palestine, Arab world and Islamic world, openly declaring his unilateral support for the Zionist criminal regime.

Needless to say that the perpetual Saudi-Iran tensions have negatively impacted the relations among Muslim nations and also directly harmed the cause of Palestine and Kashmir, among other freedom seeking nations, to achieve sovereignty. .

Saudi-Iranian conflict has also undermined the image and prestige of Islamic world and image of Islam

That is indeed unfortunate.

 

Recap:  What kicked off this decades-old conflict?

Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution played a big role in creating the hostile environment in West Asia as it is today. To Saudi Arabia, the rise of the Islamic Republic posed a double threat: Its leaders were unabashedly Shiite and staunchly anti-American, opposing a close ally of the monarchies on the Arabian Peninsula. No one event spawned the tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Apparently, though not interested in annexing neighboring nations, Iran’s leaders were keen to export their Shiite fervor beyond their borders. Iran’s first supreme leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, reportedly backed Shiite militias and parties abroad.

Tensions deepened in the 1980s, when Saudi Arabia supported Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran War.

Major backers of Saudi Arabia include Egypt, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. Iran has close ties with Iraq, large parts of Lebanon and Syria’s current leadership.

After the 1991 Gulf War — which significantly weakened Iraq — Saudi Arabia and Iran became “the two main regional powers.

The US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 made Saudi Arabia nervous. The fall of Saddam Hussein cleared the way for the rise of Iraq’s majority Shiites, who were kept on the margins by Hussein’s Sunni-led regime. Iraq’s new governments strongly reflected the new Shiite power.

During the Arab Spring in 2011, Saudi Arabia and Iran flexed their muscles, often backing opponents in countries with unrest.

The 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers was staunchly opposed by Riyadh, which feared an end to Iran’s international isolation. As a result, Saudi Arabia has sought closer ties with Israel, a major foe of Iran.

In 2016, things took a turn when Saudi Arabia executed a popular Shiite cleric. Iranians rioted in Tehran and attacked the Saudi Embassy, leading to the suspension of diplomatic relations.

Tensions have escalated further with the recent Houthi missile attacks, which Riyadh claims are orchestrated by Iran.

In response, Riyadh sought closer relationships with other Sunni governments. Such moves led to the formation of groups such as the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council.

Saudi influence in Iraq evaporated after most Sunni Arab-majority provinces seceded to join the ISIS or ISIL “caliphate” in 2014, and then were conquered by the central government’s army and its Shiite militia auxiliaries.

Which side are major Middle Eastern countries on? And who’s winning?

The pro-Iranian party-militia Hezbollah in Lebanon has dominated that country’s national unity government since 2016. Another Iranian client, the Baath regime of Bashar al-Assad, appears to have won the civil war in Syria by getting thousands of innocent Syrians killed by foreign and local armies. The extremist ISIS of US-Israeli fathers there has been defeated though Israel and USA claims the ISIS is Saudi cat’s paw.

Tehran’s relationship with the Palestinian Hamas has been roiled since 2011, and the two appear to be on the mend.

Saudis unhappy that Iran’s influence has gone from almost zero in the 1990s to predominant in the eastern reaches of the Middle East today. The mildly Shiite Houthi rebels staged a coup in Yemen in 2014, and deepened their control over the country the following year. That was mainly a local development, but Riyadh projected its Iranophobia on it.

Saudi kingdom was more than annoyed that the Obama government struck the nuclear deal with Iran , thereby lifting it out of danger zone and giving it necessary  image building. In fact Saudi Arabia began alliance with Israel forgetting the fate of Palestinians whose cause it has always Obama was happy that there could force Tehran to wind down its nuclear program so that Israel does not have any real threat.  With the nuclear deal Israel is once empowered to threaten Arab world with possible nuke attack.

It’s hard to suggest that either side is winning and booth of them know it very well and continue with the evil.

 

 External provocation and promotion

Enemies of Islam have been at work to divide Islamic world  by all possible ways. They have succeeded in misusing the hidden differences between Saudi Arabia and Iran to their own advantages even as both play into these dirty hands. Both want to  keep USA – the chief foe of Islam- on their side.  USA and Israel fuel crises in Mideast.

USA, Israel and EU provoke and promote Iran-Saudi tensions.

Saudi Arabia keeps buying extremely expensive weapons from USA – mostly in exchange for oil – with questionable capability to even maintain them. They are no match for Iran.

Unfortunately, Saudi and Iran naively view the West as their supporters in their fight against each other.

Saudi foreign policy lacks clarity and aims. Recent moves of Saudi government, including its efforts to appease Israel, show that Saudi would like to be known as Zionist Arabia so that USA takes it seriously.

Of late, the actions Saudi kingdom has taken give the world an impression that it wants to pro –US and pro-West and is restless and aims at western reform.

In recent times Prince Mohammed is looking to leverage the nationalist rhetoric to solidify his position as he pursues an anti-corruption purge some see as an attempt to cement his hold on power.  At the same time, escalatory statements against Iran help shift the media attention away from the domestic power struggle.

Thus far, MBS has treated the religious establishment as allies against radicalism rather than as cultural adversaries. MBS’s argument that extreme religious conservatism in Saudi Arabia is a relatively recent phenomenon, born in reaction to the 1979 Iranian revolution- that is absurd.

Shia-majority Iraq lies on the fault line between Shia Iran and Sunni-ruled Arab Gulf monarchies that include Saudi Arabia.

Someone is obviously advising the Saudi leadership not to lock horns with Iran because China and Russia will work behind the scenes to pull the two nations apart (as a favor to Iran). It is in the interest of both China and Russia that conflicts in the region persist. That way, both countries, Russia and China, can realize greater opportunities to multiply their economic and political footprints in the region, to influence the internal affairs of the Middle East.

The desert kingdom receives the blessing of the religious establishment to repair relations with Iran. Nothing can proceed in Saudi Arabia, from a policy perspective, without the blessing of the hardline conservative religious establishment. It leads one to wonder how Mohamed bin Salman intends to approach religious issues.

From Iran’s perspective, with the nuclear deal failing to deliver the economic miracle that Iranians were hoping for, improved relations with Saudi could give a major boost to the government of President Hassan Rouhani at a time when he faces internal challenges.

 

Reports of potential Iraq-led mediation between Iran and Saudi Arabia come as the latter leads the third year of a costly, intractable war across its border in Yemen. A rapprochement with long-time rival Iran, which is backing opposing forces in the Yemen proxy war and in Syria, could ease political and economic pressures on both sides.

Then leaked emails emerged in which Mohammed bin Salman told former US officials that he “wants out” of the Yemen war. The emails also indicated that the crown prince would not oppose a US rapprochement with Iran. Iraqi media reported that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud had asked Iraq’s prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, to lead mediation with Iran. The reported request for Iraqi mediation comes just weeks after Iraqi Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr travelled to Saudi to meet Mohammed bin Salman and other officials.

 

Saudi’s compulsions after Arab Spring

Quick spread of Arab Spring only among Arab nations, obviously ignited by USA-Israeli fascist duo, has put a lot of strain on Riyadh which is scared of revolutions that would change the status quo in Riyadh. After the Iranian revolution, this ”Spring” development made Riyadh feel vulnerable to unIslamic reforms.

Any unstable Saudi Arabia would pave the way for Iran not only to increase its influence in Iraq, Yemen, and Syria even further than it already has, but also to start working on other Gulf States, including Bahrain and Kuwait.  Iran stands to benefit from a possible destabilized Saudi Arabia. The vulnerability has led to Saudi reforms and  the visit of Prince to western capitals.

Iran has experience of the war with Iraq and Saudi Arabia is bogged down in Yemen, after failing to define the future of the Syrian revolution and counter Iran’s influence in Iraq.  Saudi Arabia’s rhetoric does not necessarily reflect interest in war,” consulting firm Eurasia Group said, pointing to a potential domestic reason for Riyadh’s combative tone.

The Arab Spring taught Saudi rulers that drastic changes are needed to keep power. King Salman has flouted traditional consensus to install his 32-year-old son as heir. The new crown prince has a poor record on foreign policy and mixed results at home. Internal tensions could ultimately block his succession or even spur a revolt

Now Saudi Arabia’s hidden power struggle comes into the open.  Media reported on plans of Amazon and Google’s parent company to build tech hubs in Saudi Arabia which is seeking to have west based entertainments for Arab youths. This seems to be a result of reforms in the country being introduced by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The aim of his efforts is to diversify the nation’s economy and make it less dependent on oil.

There are also changes in social policy resulting in the relaxation of restrictions on women. The results of this transformation, however, will have a long-term impact on the security of the entire Middle East.

Reforms have started much earlier. In January 2015, Salman bin Abdulaziz succeeded his half-brother Abdullah as the king of Saudi Arabia. During the three years of his reign, the country has witnessed changes that observers would not have thought possible at the time of his ascension to the throne. To date, the most momentous political event was the arrest of 208 high-ranking individuals on November 5, 2017, on suspicion of corruption and embezzlement of public funds. The detained included well-known princes of the House of Saud, current and former ministers and business leaders. Although most were later released after paying billions of dollars in fines, this bold move pointed to a power struggle within the kingdom

Meanwhile, tensions between Saudi Arabia and Qatar — already high due to Saudi-led economic blockade on the country — have also risen because Qatar restored diplomatic ties with Iran. Attentions have also turned to Lebanon after the surprise resignation of Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri due to what he said was Iran’s meddling in his country and his fears of an assignation plot. There has been speculation that Hariri’s resignation — made when he was in the Saudi capital of Riyadh — was orchestrated by the country’s leadership and that he was held against his will, claims which he has denied.

Amid continuing confusion over the resignation, Hariri has since traveled to Paris at the invitation of French President Emmanuel Macron, before returning to Beirut in time for the country’s Independence Day celebrations on Wednesday where he suspended his resignation.

Did the desert kingdom receive the blessing of the religious establishment to repair relations with Iran? Nothing can proceed in Saudi Arabia or Iran, from a policy perspective, without the blessing of the hardline conservative religious establishment.

One has no clues as to how Prince Mohamed bin Salman intends to approach religious issues. Thus far, MBS has treated the religious establishment as allies against radicalism rather than as cultural adversaries. MBS argues that extreme religious conservatism in Saudi Arabia is a relatively recent phenomenon, born in reaction to the 1979 Iranian revolution.

Yemeni Army and Yemeni Houthis have been beating the crap out of Saudi Arabia in the invasion Saudis did to Yemen. Not only Saudis, but entire ‘coalition’ they assembled from the countries which back them, (Gulf, Egypt etc) and the mercenaries they hired. Iran would roll over Saudi Arabia.

For at least the second time in as many months, Saudi Arabia announced that it had intercepted a missile fired by Yemen’s Houthi rebels at Riyadh. No one was injured. Even so, Saudi Arabia suggested the attack was tantamount to an act of war by Iran. Saudi Arabia claims that Iran is supplying the Houthi fighters with weapons. The US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, backed the claim in a fiery news conference last week.

Tehran denies it is providing the Houthis with weapons. But Iran has repeatedly denounced a Saudi-led military coalition that has carried out airstrikes and other attacks in Yemen for more than three years since a Saudi-allied government was toppled.

This latest missile incursion probably won’t result in any kind of direct conflict between the Middle East’s two regional powers. Though it will, undoubtedly, result in the deaths of many more Yemeni civilians from airstrikes, famine and cholera, an eminently curable disease currently ravaging the country. But it will only deepen the friction between the two nations, which have been engaged in proxy conflicts for decades. It’s a rivalry at the heart of unrest in Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon and beyond. Here are some important ways to understand the disputes and suspicions:

Maybe, the royal family is worried more about its survival and domestic stability. Thus, shifting the conversation and diverting attention could be a good strategy. However, if the people of Riyadh, Jeddah, Dammam, Khobar, and Qatif among others, were to unravel, combined with ongoing issues in the Shi’a eastern province, things could quickly take a different turn. In that case, Iran stands to benefit from a destabilized Saudi Arabia.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is now regarded as the most powerful man in the Middle East. Through the rapprochement with Israel, he is attempting to thwart Iran’s supposed quest to become the dominant power in the region. To improve the kingdom’s finances Prince Mohammed began an anti-corruption campaign, targeted at the richest Saudis.  The goal was to recoup more than $100 billion. It the most far-reaching overhaul of the state, economy and society since the kingdom was founded in 1932. Saudi regime has got a lot of money from the princes, other Islamic capitalists who fund the imperialist wars.

The Iraqi TV channel Alghadeer reported that Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), the impulsive crown prince who once said that he would take the fight to Iran, reached out to Haider al-Abadi, the Iraqi prime minister, requesting that al-Abadi lead a mediation effort with Iran.

It looks like Saudi Arabia is finally realizing that its impulsive strategies and ill-conceived policies are not working in its favor and therefore reports suggest that Saudi Arabia rushes to mend ties with Iran. This change of heart from Saudi Arabia is due not only to the Middle East’s complex political dynamics, but also the kingdom’s declining regional political clout.

Why this sudden change of heart from Saudi Arabia? The answer lies in not only the Middle East’s complex political dynamics, but also the kingdom’s declining regional political clout. Let us, then, not fall for the Saudis’ empty promises, false indications, and misreading.

An explanation is that Saudi Arabia wants to accelerate the inevitable political changes that will speed across the region once the Syrian conflict is resolved, if ever, tensions in Yemen subside, the blockade of Qatar gets lifted, and oil prices stabilize.

The conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia is fueling some of the region’s most intractable conflicts. In Syria, Iran has consistently backed Assad; Saudi Arabia is financially supporting rebel groups. In Yemen, Saudi Arabia has waged war against the country’s Houthi rebels, complete with a blockade of the country and airstrikes. More than 10,000 civilians have died in the conflict. In Iraq, the two countries may be at odds over efforts to rebuild after Islamic State.

And in Lebanon, experts say Saudi Arabia pressured the country’s prime minister to resign in an effort to destabilize the country, where Iran’s ally Hezbollah has wide influence. This could upend Lebanon’s 2018 elections and disrupt the delicate balance among the country’s religious groups.

Conflict in Lebanon could so easily draw in Israel in opposition to Hezbollah and this could lead to a third Israel-Lebanon war far more devastating than any of the previous encounters. The Saudi-Iranian rivalry has become the organizing principle for Mideast alliances, reminiscent of how the Cold War divided countries along USA and Soviet lines.

The guess is that someone is advising the Saudi leadership not to lock horns with Iran because China and Russia will work behind the scenes to pull the two nations apart (as a favor to Iran). Saudi Arabia wants to accelerate the inevitable political changes that will speed across the region once the Syrian conflict is resolved (if ever), tensions in Yemen subside, the blockade of Qatar gets lifted, and oil prices stabilize.

 

An unstable Saudi Arabia would pave the way for Iran not only to increase its influence in Iraq, Yemen, and Syria even further than it already has, but also to start working on other Gulf States, including Bahrain and Kuwait.

 

 Intractable conflict

 

Anti-Islamic world, particularly Israel and USA have been looking for a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia that would involve entire Islam world.  They indeed fuel crisis in West Asia and provoke both Iran and Saudi Arabia with mischievous misinformation about each other.

War mongering western and Eastern media promote war conditions  for them to quickly attack each other.

Iran is the predominant Shiite power in the region, and Saudi Arabia is a Sunni powerhouse. Is this just an age-old religious war?

Shia-majority Iraq lies on the fault line between Shia-Iran and Sunni-ruled Arab Gulf monarchies that include Saudi Arabia. The kingdom’s demand for Iraq to act as a mediator to mend Saudi Arabia’s relations with Iran shows that the desert kingdom realizes a pragmatic political truth: Rather than fight Iran on all fronts, it makes sense to reestablish relations, to work together (though on the surface only) to resolve regional issues (Syria, Yemen, Iraq, etc.), and to find a common ground on oil prices.

 

However, Iran and the world large is concerned about the Saudis’ empty promises, false indications, and misreading.

 

One obvious area where they could come into direct conflict is in the waters of the Gulf, where they face each other across a maritime border. But here too fighting could risk a much broader conflict. For the US and other Western powers, freedom of navigation in the Gulf is essential and any conflict that sought to block the waterway – vital for international shipping and oil transportation – could easily draw in US naval and air forces.

Saudi Arabia has taken it its right to be the leader of Islamic world in the region and it cannot accept any other Muslim country to claim Islamic leadership. The desert kingdom’s initiative for reforms stems from fear of losing its leadership in the region—whatever is left of it—in the face of Iran’s growing influence. Those in the Middle East who disagree with the assessment that the reestablishment of relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia will bring stability to the region keep fueling the crisis.

Iran is gearing up for military upgradation. It has long standing institutional organizations ranging from Revolutionary Guards to Intelligence organizations. It has its own arms industry, able to design and manufacture its own combat aircraft which are competent to a degree, has the technology to design and manufacture tactical ballistic missiles, antiship missiles and many more. Iran claims military superiority over Saudi Arabia.

The desert kingdom (the royal family) is worried more about its survival and domestic stability and if Iran helps Saudi in this regards that as a starting point for reconciliation. Iran is a “peaceful nation” but that it is prepared for conflict because of Saudi assertiveness and its superiority complex but its claim that conflict is the only option left to it is nonsense.

Saudi Arabia increasingly relies on mercenaries as well. Saudi Arabia increasingly relies on mercenaries as well -Blackwater to Colombian mercenaries. In contrast Iran is a republic however you look at it, and even if it is constructed on a conservative religious basis it is still a representative democracy. People have sense of ownership of their country, and this reflects in the motivation of the army. The army is more professional, has experience from Iran-Iraq war.

In contrast Iran is a republic however you look at it, and even if it is constructed on a conservative religious basis it is still a representative democracy. People have sense of ownership of their country, and this reflects in the motivation of the army. The army is more professional, has experience from Iran-Iraq war, and it has long standing institutional organizations ranging from Revolutionary Guards to Intelligence organizations. It has its own arms industry, able to design and manufacture its own combat aircraft which are competent to a degree, has the technology to design and manufacture tactical ballistic missiles, antiship missiles and many more.

Saudi Arabia on the other hand, keeps buying extremely expensive weapons from USA, UK, others, with questionable capability to even maintain them. They are no match for Iran.

Saudi Arabia constructed its army along ethnic lines. The military reflects the tribal divisions which exist within the country. It does not present a strongly united fighting force. In addition, the soldiers do not have much motivation to fight due to living under an absolute dictatorship.

There is a political dilemma where the Saudis are playing a role in Syria and Yemen. It is straining Riyadh politically and economically, and in both places, Iran is playing an important role

Saudi Arabia and Iran have rival interests and alliances across the Middle East, from Syria to Lebanon, Yemen to Qatar. Regional conflicts in these countries often see Sunni-ruled Saudi Arabia and Shia-majority Iran supporting different factions that are often split down religious lines.

With Yemen’s civil war, for example, Saudi Arabia backs the Yemeni President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, a Sunni. Meanwhile, Iran backs the Shia Houthi rebels loyal to the country’s former President Ali Abdulla Saleh.

Tensions ratcheted up a notch several weeks ago when Saudi Arabia accused Iran of being behind a ballistic missile attack carried out by Houthi militias. The missiles were intercepted as they headed to the Saudi capital Riyadh, Saudi Arabia said, adding that it perceived the attack as a “declaration of war” by Iran. Iran described the allegations as “unfounded.”

Proxy wars are being promoted by both West Asian nations. Israel’s energy minister confirmed that there had been what he called “covert” contacts between Saudi Arabia and Israel amid concerns over Iran but suggested that Saudi Arabia had wanted to keep “the ties quiet”.

From a Yemeni missile attack to the resignation of Lebanon’s prime minister, the “Cold War” between Middle East rivals Saudi Arabia and Iran has been heating up. Experts believe the risk of a direct military clash is low, but why have tensions escalated now and how will the crisis evolve?

It seems unlikely that Iran and Saudi Arabia will go to war, at least in the traditional sense. “A broader regional conflict remains unlikely,” Graham Griffiths, a senior analyst at consulting firm Control Risks, told AFP.

Iran would roll over Saudi Arabia.

Could things explode as anxiously speculated by western powers?

 

  Observation – Why reconciliation quite possible?

 

Saudi-Iran conflict is not a natural one but instigated and fueled and boosted by anti-Islamic nations and media. If there was a conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, however, it would be the most dangerous times for the Middle East and the world. But neither Saudi Arabia nor Iran wants war.

Both Iran and Saudi kingdom promote corruption as their key policy. Is there any Muslim nation that takes stern action on bribery and corruption? Why are they not able to fight corruption? Are they scared of reactions from highly corrupt nations like USA?  Don’t the Arab rulers know by promoting corruption they indeed for the people to commit more and more illegal and immoral activities, make the people criminals that are detrimental to Islamic faith?

Even while trying to contain each other in the spear of influence and terror goods supply to allies, both Saudi and Iran promote corruption in the respective society and abroad.

Yes, apparently, Saudi Arabia is finally realizing that its impulsive strategies and ill-conceived policies are not working in its favor. Who ever thought that in an era of arrogant chest pounding the desert kingdom would reach out to Iraq to mend relations between Riyadh and Tehran? But that is exactly what happened few days ago. The young Prince seems to be is eager to fly to Riyadh for a brief stay over.

Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy, under the aegis of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, is hard to understand. Domestically Mohammed bin Salman’s actions are radical and even comprehensible, but on a foreign stage it is very hard to make sense of at all

The desert kingdom’s initiative stems from fear of losing its leadership in the region—whatever is left of it—in the face of Iran’s growing influence. The kingdom’s demand for Iraq to act as a mediator to mend Saudi Arabia’s relations with Iran shows that the Islamic kingdom realizes a pragmatic political truth: Rather than fight Iran on all fronts, it makes sense to reestablish relations, to work together (though on the surface only) to resolve regional issues (Syria, Yemen, Iraq, etc.), and to find a common ground on oil prices.

The future of Saudi Arabia will change as it settles into the region’s geopolitical shift. That landscape is one in which Iran’s influence continues to grow, and Saudi Arabia pursues unsound foreign policies while domestic discontent high unemployment grows. Thus, Saudi Arabia’s desire to repair relations with Iran is a strategic move and has nothing to do with Islamic brotherhood or any other slogan.

The bottom line is that if Iran is seeking to encircle Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia and Israel are trying to encircle Iran.  While the increase in tensions has raised serious concerns, few expect an outright military confrontation. Iran believes it also is modern and Saudi Arabia is not. West seeks not merely modernization of Saudi kingdom but also regime change to imbibe western culture and value system, including corruption.

Saudi Arabia’s desire therefore to repair relations with Iran is a strategic move and has nothing to do with Islamic brotherhood or any other slogan.

 

Apparently, Iran and Saudi Arabia off and on have made efforts to come together. Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), the impulsive crown prince who once said that he would take the fight to Iran, reached out to Haider al-Abadi, the Iraqi prime minister, requesting that al-Abadi lead a mediation effort with Iran.

 

The kingdom’s demand for Iraq to act as a mediator to mend Saudi Arabia’s relations with Iran shows that the desert kingdom realizes a pragmatic political truth: Rather than fight Iran on all fronts, it makes sense to reestablish relations, to work together (though on the surface only) to resolve regional issues (Syria, Yemen, Iraq, etc.), and to find a common ground on oil prices.

Saudi Arabia and Iran’s ongoing battle for power and influence rages on in the Middle East  Many neighboring countries have been drawn into the conflict with Qatar, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon becoming proxy battlegrounds in the fight for regional dominance.

So it is not Islam that they try to promote but on the contrary they dishonor Islam. Both only try to tarnish the image as well as importance of Islam by tier meaningless fighting, harming the genuine interests of Islamic nations and Muslims. Peoples of Palestine and Kashmir have not been able to get back their sovereignty from the occupation forces of colonialist nations due mainly to the foolish actins of Islamic world.

Saudi Arabia and Iran could promote proxy wars and sustain cold war but they won’t go for a mad war to attack and destroy each other and kill Muslims. A broader regional conflict remains unlikely, Riyadh would instead look to use the latest missile incident to push for further sanctions against Tehran.

Knowing the cost of a war and loss of humans, both sides would steer clear of open conflict.

Saudi Arabia and Iran, meanwhile, would benefit from a de-escalation of tensions, which hit a peak in January 2016 as Saudi severed diplomatic ties with Iran after protesters, reacting to Saudi’s execution of Shia religious leader Nimr al-Nimr, attacked the country’s embassy in Tehran.   The escalation of the dispute has gone too far, and it is going towards an armed struggle, which I don’t think the Saudis or the Iranians would like to see.

Saudi and Iran must end their childish cold war just claim self importance globosely and stop the antagonistic rhetoric forthwith to enable them to resume nu oral relations in due course.

A positive breakthrough in the Saudi-Iraqi relations would lead to the beginning of the retreat of sectarian strife in the Arab-Islamic region and fruition of better ties among Muslim nations. Iraq would be well positioned to “gain a reputation of being a moderate and neutral party” in the region.

Where there is a will there will be a way as well.  What is missing in Saudi Arabia and Iran is a strong will to bury the irrelevant past and work together for the welfare of Islamic world and Muslims and for the sake of Islam and its global unity.

Behave please!

Although the struggle for regional supremacy has long defined Saudi-Iran relations, the extent of the turmoil in neighboring countries might have led to the realization that both would benefit from a thaw. Many in the Middle East argue, rightly so, that the reestablishment of relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia will bring stability to the region.

Normalization of Saudi Iran relations would also create stability in Mideast and keep Israel at a distance. Turkey seeks unity among Muslim nations and these three nations could led the Islamic world. .

 

Indian federalism under strain: Karnataka refuses Kaveri water for Chennai but IPL- BCCI lords mange to hold the IPL drama in Chennai to make money!

Indian federalism under strain: Karnataka refuses Kaveri water for Chennai but IPL- BCCI lords mange to hold the IPL drama in Chennai to make money!

-Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

—–

 

Entire Tamil Nadu is demanding the establishment of Cauvery Board to regulate water flow from Karnataka into Tamil Nadu for agricultural and other important purposes.

Karnataka government refuses to respect the orders of the courts and tribunals and Tami Nadu continues to suffer owing to serious water scarcity. .

Last time there was no Chennai team as the Supreme Court had banned it for its corrupt operations. However, India government and BCCI have decided to revive Chennai to help the millionaires mint more money by enacting big show of 6s. .

Cricket is a well known falsehood and gambling packages as a sport in the name of entertainment.

Recently the Apex court has ordered to the federal government to  launch the Cauvery Board quickly and resolve the water crisis of Tamil Nadu. But Karnataka government and Indian government refuse to obey the court orders.

Tamil Nadu government has refused permission to BCCI and IPL dramatics to hold the IPL in Chennai due to agitations for Kaveri water.

In order to force Tamil Nadu government the first IPL match between the defending Mumbai and newcomer Chennai team a was adjusted to let Chennai team win by defeating the defending Mumbai team.

In stead of pushing for staging the iPL show in Chennai which is reeling under the agitations for Kaveri water, the iPL and BCCI should support the cause of Tamil people and join them for early water form Kaveri river- common between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.

Tamil nadu film fraternity has join the agitations for Cauvery water and Cauvery Board.

IPL and BCCI should forthwith give away their plan for IPL drama in Chennai and they should have some logic and compassion for the people of Tamil Nadu.

It is indeed storage that the BCCI-IPL lords want to make huge profits in Chennai when Tamil people are struggle for their water rights and the farmers suffer without enough water as Karnataka and federal government jointly withhold water from Cauvery River that is allowed legally for Tamil Nadu.

The Chennai team has refused to support the case of Chennai people and refused to wear a badge for water for Tamil nadu and a black badge as they are under the control of big lords in New Delhi. But they insist that they will play joint cricketism in Chennai and reap the profits as their birth right.

The federal government refused to let the Karnataka release the water to Tamil Nadu because   the BJP wants to defeat the ruling Congress party by pretending to be supporting the “Kannada” cause.

So, the federal government is creating problem for federalism in India.

This kind of political business trend must be fought.

Former Tamil Nadu CM J. Jayalalithaa (Amma) refused to let the IPL guys play matches in Chennai last time under similar circumstances but now  the AIADMK government claiming to be Amma government just  obliged the powerful cricket mafia possibly after accepting huge sums from them to  hoist IPL in Chennai, ignoring the  sentiments of Tamils.  Many people in Chennai protested against the IPL  match in Chennai but Tamil Nadu police  beat them, apparently filed cases against them.

As expected, Dhoni’s Chennai team was encouraged by Kolkata team to win the match so that those support IPL in Chennai won’t be disappointed. In fact Channel was losing the match towards the end but Kolkata did not let it lose.

And Doni and team is likely to be the permanent winner of IPL henceforth.  Shame wins are very common in cricket but cricketers like Dhoni, Kolhi, Sachin, etc are not bothered about the moral and legal issues involved.

That is cricketism. Joint cricket exercises.

By the by, Dhoni has been given civilian award one level below the Bharatratna but he and his mafia including in military establishment where he is made a Colonel (for what? No one knows) have been pestering the federal government to offer him Bharatratna at par with Sachin because he can also hit 6 if the bowlers throw nice ball. Dhoni came in military uniform to receive the national award from president of India.  Is military uniform so cheap? If a cricketer hits 100 with the help of fellow batboys and bowlers, military offers Colonel post ma dif an actor plays the role of a solder he is made a Colonel.

What is all this?  Is it so easy to get  a post of Colonel in military?

Indian regime asked the military to make Dhoni, Sachin etc  a member of military- army, navy or airforce and not only cricketers but even actors have been accommodated in military pay rolls for extra money)

And IPL guys defeated Tamils and enjoyed their match and money power, sharing it with ruling politicians. After the demise of Jayalalithaa MLAs in the ruling party openly demand and take bribes without informing the party leadership.

That is of course their business.

How can the government cave in to the cricket mafia pressure?

 

 

 

Pakistan should focus on sports

Pakistan should focus on sports
– Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal
_____
 
Pathetic Pakistan at CWG Australia
Pakistan has already got its second bronze medal. at CWG Australia
Congratulations to Pakistani government and military lords.
Pakistan would know that even a weak Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have at least one Silver each but the great nuke power Pakistan could not make a single Silver so far.
Why Pakistani government and military do not want to shine in sports?
Pakistani rival nuke power India is heavy with golds, silvers and bronzes and as it wants to get all medals of the event. it is eager to get as many medals as it managed when it organized CWG in Delhi by possible manipulations with UK help.
But the vigor and intent that is with Indians is missing with Pakistanis who take everything except promote US-NATO “terrorism” in a causal manner- is that not?
Pakistan regime spends most of its resources on military and rich fellows and has no money for sports and it does not ask for sports goods from USA and China as a part of service charges.
Pakistan is worse than even a banana state. weak economy, weak politics, weak foreign policy, weak military but has nukes, but for what?
India would never use nukes.
Pakistani over stress on India in terms of military and nukes is not good. Pakistan must get over fear of India and plan for the people of the nation for its future. . .
It is true India and USA have make Pakistan what it is today without nay propose and only responding to Indian threats and attacks by cross border fires but that exactly s Indian strategy to control Pakistan and keep it under developed and destabilized. .
imperialist USA used Pakistan to invade and destroy Afghanistan and now insults Pakistanis in the company of colonialist India.
Now Pakistan has taken China as a serious fiend and credible ally against India and USA but china hates Islam and kills and attack Muslims indoors. Beijing doesn’t allow basic freedoms of paying and fasting to its own Muslims. How can China be genuine ally of Islamic Pakistan especially when USA is there to control even China and Russia. Now all of them are in Syria as well for profits. . .
Nukes and military maybe necessary but not more than for the sports and social development, economy, , people’s well being.
Pakistan should have planning commission to plan for the future of Pakistan. and to advise the regime on its real priorities.
Time is running out fast for Pakistan.

 

Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

Indian federalism under strain: Karnataka refuses Kaveri water for Chennai but IPL- BCCI lords are keen to hold the IPL drama in Chennai to make money as prestige matter!

Indian federalism under strain: Karnataka refuses Kaveri water for Chennai but IPL- BCCI lords are keen to hold the IPL drama in Chennai to make money as prestige matter!

-Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

Entire Tamil Nadu is demanding the establishment of Cauvery Board to regulate water flow from Karnataka into Tamil Nadu for agricultural and other important purposes.

Karnataka government refuses to respect the orders of the courts and tribunals and Tami Nadu continues to suffer owing to serious water scarcity. .

Last time there was no Chennai team as the Supreme Court had banned it for its corrupt operations. However, India government and BCCI have decided to revive Chennai to help the millionaires mint more money by enacting big show of 6s. .

Cricket is a well known falsehood and gambling packages as a sport in the name of entertainment.

Recently the Apex court has ordered to the federal government to  launch the Cauvery Board quickly and resolve the water crisis of Tamil Nadu. But Karnataka government and Indian government refuse to obey the court orders.

Tamil Nadu government has refused permission to BCCI and IPL dramatics to hold the IPL in Chennai due to agitations for Kaveri water.

In order to force Tamil Nadu government the first IPL match between the defending Mumbai and newcomer Chennai team a was adjusted to let Chennai team win by defeating the defending Mumbai team.

In stead of pushing for staging the iPL show in Chennai which is reeling under the agitations for Kaveri water, the iPL and BCCI should support the cause of Tamil people and join them for early water form Kaveri river- common between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.

Tamil nadu film fraternity has join the agitations for Cauvery water and Cauvery Board.

IPL and BCCI should forthwith give away their plan for IPL drama in Chennai and they should have some logic and compassion for the people of Tamil Nadu.

It is indeed storage that the BCCI-IPL lords want to make huge profits in Chennai when Tamil people are struggle for their water rights and the farmers suffer without enough water as Karnataka and federal government jointly withhold water from Cauvery River that is allowed legally for Tamil Nadu.

The Chennai team has refused to support the case of Chennai people and refused to wear a badge for water for Tamil nadu and a black badge as they are under the control of big lords in New Delhi. But they insist that they will play joint cricketism in Chennai and reap the profits as their birth right.

The federal government refused to let the Karnataka release the water to Tamil Nadu because   the BJP wants to defeat the ruling Congress party by pretending to be supporting the “Kannada” cause.

So, the federal government is creating problem for federalism in India.

The political business trend must be fought.

Meaningless Saudi-Iran rivalry -I

 

Meaningless Saudi-Iran rivalry -I

– Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

______

 

 

 

  1. Strange phenomenon

 

It is indeed strange that Islamic nations Saudi Arabia and Iran keep confronting with each other on flimsy issues.

At the outset, one can call this phenomenon being insanity or simply nonsense the way the supposedly Islamic leaders Saudi Arabia and Iran keep fighting over cooked up issues or mere suspicions, ignoring even the sincere mediatory efforts of Turkey to bring them together and jointly launch a joint alliance to defend the destabilized Muslim nations and protect the interests of entire Islamic world

Oil and petrodollars have empowered the Arab nations and Iran to insult and belittle each other, providing enough opportunities to the enemies of Islam led by USA and Israel to celebrate their joint victory against Islam. They have already murdered millions of Muslims in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Arab nations in the name of war on terror which in reality means a permanent fascist war on Islam.

However, Saudi Arabia which looks up USA as their real lord and Israel as their most trust “worthy” strategic partner, though even Americans do not trust the Jews, and Iran which promotes a war front among the Shiite nations though not targeting Sunni world.

It is true entire Islamic world cannot provide any real opposition to US-Israeli military prowess but falling at their liquor-pork feet shows the weakness, wickedness and hypocrisy of entire Islamic world.

But that Saudi Arabia and Iran contribute sizably to the global and regional tensions makes things worse for the humanity beyond global Muslims.

Seemingly unending and shameless Saudi-Iran rivalry is a black spot on the image of Islam, though the enemies of Islam are obviously very happy about the perpetual Sunni-Shiia sectarian crisis in West Asia, negatively affecting the Muslim nations. 

USA and Europe have serious differences over many issues but they fight like street dogs so as Saudi-Iran do as a fashion. USA and Russia have serious differences that only a direct war could solve but they don’t go to war directly. Saudi Arabia, in order to impose its will on Arab world and Iran nations, is seen in a perpetually conflictual siltation with Iran- a sisterly nation to Arab world. .

It should be clear even to school children that anti-Islamic forces and media promote and fuel the Saudi-Iran conflict which itself is a misunderstanding of Islam and an anomaly. However Saudi kingdom and Iran- both important producers of oil -promote capitalism as a central part of their own versions of “Islamic” system.

In the region’s geopolitical shift Iran’s influence continues to grow, and Saudi Arabia pursues unsound foreign policies to appease USA and Israel while domestic discontent like high unemployment grows. Thus, Saudi Arabia’s desire to repair relations with Iran is a strategic move and has nothing to do with Islamic brotherhood

The enmity between Iran and Saudi Arabia is a persistent feature of Middle Eastern geopolitics. Both states hold regional standing: Iran has a large population and a long history of nationhood, while Saudi Arabia holds significant oil reserves and is custodian of Islam’s holiest sites.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are in a rhetoric and sectarian war, increasing the global oil prices.  Any mediation efforts that lead to reducing the tension between them therefore will affect oil prices positively.

By the by, in infighting with each other, whom do Saudi and Iranian regimes try to appease?

It is a known fact that the reestablishment of relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia will bring stability not only to the West Asia region but will also steadily increase constructive ties among Muslim nations.

Apparently, nothing can proceed in Saudi Arabia, from a policy perspective, without the blessing of the hardline conservative religious establishment. Mohamed bin Salman has treated the religious establishment as allies against radicalism rather than as cultural adversaries. MBS’s argument that extreme religious conservatism in Saudi Arabia is a relatively recent phenomenon, born in reaction to the 1979 Iranian revolution, is rather absurd.

In area, Saudi Arabia is bigger than Iran, but in population Iran is ahead of its rival by more than two and a half times. Gross domestic product per capita is US$24,847 and $14,403 for Saudi Arabia and Iran respectively, but in military expenditure, Saudi Arabia, with $80.8 billion, again far exceeds Iran, which spends only $25 billion annually. While 8% of Iran’s population is Sunni, Shiites make up 10% of Saudi Arabia’s total population of 32.28 million. Yet the two leading powers in the Middle East have been engaged in proxy wars for decades.

In order to reset Saudi relations with US differently than existing today, Salman has now made a two long trip to USA and struck a military deal for huge cost. Whether or not the purchase of terror equipments from USA would help improve the ailing bilateral relations, USA would reassured of continued flow of Saudi money into Washington. However, USA any not revise its Iran policy to mend ties with Riyadh.

 

  1. Origins of the Sunni-Shiite rivalry 

 

Sunni and Shiia are the two major branches of Islam but both prefer to ignore that deliberately insult each other in order mainly to appease their bosses in the West.

Although Saudi Arabia and Iran are both Muslim-majority nations and follow and rule through Islamic scripture, their relations are fraught with hostility, tension and confrontation, due more to external interferences than to differences in their political agendas that are strengthened for their minor differences in faith.

It is a fact that both Saudi Arabia and Iran are seen to have aspirations for leadership of Islam, and have different visions of stability and regional order. The anti-Islamic forces have used that selfish interest rather than purely Islamic or spiritualistic, to generate tensions between them.

Sunni powerhouse Saudi Arabia and Iran, the predominant Shiite power, have a long-standing rivalry based as much in geostrategic interests much more than any religious differences. Facing off across the Gulf, the two energy-rich powers have for decades stood meaninglessly on opposing sides of conflicts in the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are major oil and gas exporters and have clashed over energy policy. Saudi Arabia, with its large oil reserves and smaller population, has a greater interest in taking a long-term view of the global oil market and incentive to moderate prices. In contrast, Iran is compelled to focus on high prices in the short term due to its low standard of living given recent sanctions after its decade old war with Saddam’s Iraq.

Saudi Arabia is a right-wing conservative Sunni Islamic kingdom with a tradition of close ties with the USA and the UK. Iran is a Twelver Shia Islamic Republic founded in an anti-Western Islamic Revolution with close ties to Russia, China and Cuba.

There are few issues that keep them out of tune with one another.

The Sunni-Shiite divide between Saudi Arabia and Tehran is a crucial factor not just in conflicts between the two countries but various sects in Islam across the globe. .

Iran has even called into doubt the suitability of the Saudi royal family to serve as custodians of Mecca and Medina, the holiest cities in Islam — especially after a stampede at the annual hajj pilgrimage in 2015 left hundreds of Iranians dead.

The Iranian revolution of 1979 and the advent of the Islamic Republic — with its fiercely anti-American slant — were perceived as a double threat to the conservative Saudi led Sunni monarchies of the Arabian Peninsula, allied with the USA. The 2011 Arab Spring uprising, which saw Iran support the demands of sizable Shiite minorities in Gulf monarchies, was another turning point, Arab states appeared vulnerable and Iran was then defined as the main threat to regional stability.

Earlier, in 1943, Saudi Arabia executed an Iranian pilgrim, Abu Taleb Yazidi, who allegedly threw his vomit on the Kaaba during the Hajj pilgrimage. Iran reacted sharply and broke diplomatic relations until 1946, when Ibn Saud took the initiative by writing a letter to Reza Shah urging the resumption of diplomatic ties. For the next nine years, the two countries walked on common grounds: Both were aligned toward the US and both had oil industries to develop. Then the year 1953 saw a new era of Saudi-Iran relations

The British decision to withdraw its military forces from the Persian Gulf region by 1971 was replaced by a new Western presence when US president Richard Nixon entered the Middle East arena with his “twin pillars” policy for regional stability. But the USA tilted in favor of Iran, making it a dominant military power, while promoting Israel as the superpower of West Asia region.

Iran’s ambition was visible in its territorial gains, which alarmed Saudi Arabia, with its repossession of three islands, the Greater and Lesser Tunbs and Abu Musa in November 1971, which was in direct conflict with the claims of the United Arab Emirates.

The Iranian Revolution of 1979 launched a radical Shiite Islamist agenda that was perceived as a challenge to Saudi Arabia. Tehran’s policy of supporting proxy war in Yemen and Syria alarmed the Gulf states led by the kingdom.

The 1979 revolution established a regime dominated by Shiite clerics hostile to the West and to the Saudi monarchy. The Iran-Iraq War, in which Saudi Arabia and its smaller Gulf neighbors supported Iraq, put further strains on the relationship. In the late 1990s, visits by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to Tehran and by Iranian president Mohammad Khatami and his predecessor Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani to Riyadh helped eased relations. But it was not enough.

Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran are poles apart in Islamic ideology, which is central to the foreign policies of both countries. As the guardian of the two holy mosques, Saudi Arabia represents Sunni Islam, which Tehran rejects. Under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran’s open intention to take over the two holy mosques from Saudi Arabia helped escalate enmity between the two. The 15-day Grand Mosque siege of 1979 by militants caused damage to the bilateral relationship, since Saudi Arabia perceived interference by Iran.

Before the 1979 Iranian revolution, relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia proceeded without major incident. Ties improved in the 1960s, as cooperation grew in the face of the threats posed to both by Gamal Abdel Nasser’s pan-Arabism and by potential Soviet penetration. Another mutual threat was posed by the secular Arab-nationalist Baathists in Iraq, who took power in the 1960s.

The end of British military presence in the Persian Gulf region in 1971 was followed soon by the initiation of new US foreign policy in the region. President Richard Nixon initiated the “twin-pillar policy” in the Persian Gulf, whereby Iran and Saudi Arabia would operate together as local guardians of US interests in the region. Iran eagerly assumed the role of regional policeman, while Saudi Arabia played an important, but not dominant, role as a US ally in the Arab world.

Under the twin-pillar policy, cooperation between Iran and Saudi Arabia extended to joint operations under US guidance in defeating communist elements in North Yemen, Zaire, Somalia and Oman, but following the assassination of King Faisal in 1975, the Kingdom began to display a new approach towards oil, its major resource. The Shah declared publicly that oil had been undervalued for years and that OPEC urgently needed a price hike.

The Shah anticipated the Saudis’ cooperation, but, as the de facto leader of OPEC, Saudi Arabia declared in December 1976 that it would not increase the price of its oil. Saudi Arabia was thereby able both to increase its market share and to conform to Western economic interests. Meanwhile, the Shah was heavily reliant on high oil prices to limit a growing budget deficit and maintain high military spending. Domestic sentiment grew in Iran that the Shah’s economic programme had failed to meet the expectations raised by the oil-revenue windfall.

After the Iranian revolution in 1979, religion would be at the forefront of Iran’s state identity. Ayatollah Khomeini claimed broad Islamic support for the revolution and was quick to criticize the “decadence” of the Wahhabi Saudi monarchy. The claim that a Shiite theocracy would be the authoritative voice of Islam clashed with the Saudi Kingdom’s assumed religious legitimacy as the guardian of the two Holy Mosques, in Mecca and Medina. Iranian endeavors to use the media to mobilize Saudi Arabia’s Shiite minority caused further concern in the Kingdom over Iran’s intentions.

So when Saddam Hussein made his first state visit to Saudi Arabia in August 1980, he received approval from King Khalid for his plans to invade Iran in the throes of political transition. Saudi Arabia provided billions in financial assistance to Saddam’s campaign and pressed for other Gulf States to follow suit. Direct attacks occurred midway through the war; Iran struck Saudi tankers, and the Kingdom responded by shooting down two Iranian jet fighters. In 1987, 275 protesting Iranians were killed in a riot and stampede in Mecca. By the end of the war, an estimated 750,000 Iranians and 500,000 Iraqis had perished.

  1. 4.

 

Tensions after Iranian revolution

 

After the Iranian Revolution, relations deteriorated considerably after Iran accused Saudi Arabia of being an agent of the US in the Persian Gulf region, representing US interests rather than Islam. Saudi Arabia is concerned by Iran’s consistent desire to export its revolution across the board to expand its influence within the Persian Gulf region—notably in post-Saddam Iraq, the Levant and within further south in addition to Iran’s controversial, much debated nuclear program

The founder of the Iranian revolution in 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini, was ideologically opposed to monarchy, which he believed to be unIslamic. Saudi Arabia’s monarchy, on the other hand, remains consistently conservative, not revolutionary, and politically married to age-old religious leaders of the tribes who support the monarchy and the king (namely the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques) is given absolute obedience as long as he does not violate Islamic sharia law. Saudi Arabia has, however, a Shia minority which has recently made bitter complaints of institutional discrimination against it, specifically after the 2007 change in Iraqi governance and particularly after the 2011 events that spanned the region. At some stages it has gone as far as to call for overthrowing the king and the entire system

Iran and Saudi Arabia have no diplomatic relations following an attack to Saudi Embassy in Tehran in 2016. Bilateral relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have been strained over different geo-political issues such as the interpretations of Islam, aspirations for leadership of the Islamic world, oil export policy and relations with the United States and other Western countries.

In the Syrian Civil War Iran has supported the Syrian government militarily and with billions of dollars of aid, while Saudi is a major supplier of aid to rebel groups. Both countries have accused each other of support for terrorism.

After the Saudi diplomatic missions in Tehran and Mashhad were ransacked by Iranian protesters, Saudi Arabia broke off diplomatic relations with Iran on January 3, 2016.

On February 14, 2016, the government of Switzerland announced that it will represent Saudi interests in Iran and Iranian interests in Saudi Arabia. Switzerland has recently been the protecting power for Egypt and the United States since diplomatic relations were strained following the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Tensions between the two countries have waxed and waned. Relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran soured particularly after the Iranian Revolution, the nuclear program, the 2011 alleged Iran assassination plot and more recently the execution of Nimr al-Nimr. There have also been numerous attempts to improve the relationship. After the 1991 Gulf war there was a noticeable thaw in relations. In March 2007 President Ahmadinejad of Iran visited Riyadh and was greeted at the airport by King Abdullah, and the two countries were referred to in the press as “brotherly nations”. After March 2011, Iran’s financial and military support for Syria during the Syrian Civil War, has been a severe blow to the improvement of relations.

On January 3, 2016 Saudi Arabia’s embassy in Tehran, Iran was ransacked following the execution of Saudi-born Shia Islam cleric Nimr al-Nimr. The execution prompted widespread condemnation within the Arab World as well as other countries, the European Union and the United Nations, with protests being carried out in cities in Iran, Iraq, India, Lebanon, Pakistan and Turkey. Following the attack on its embassy in Iran, Saudi Arabia broke diplomatic relations with Iran and the Saudi foreign minister said that all Iranian diplomats are to leave the country within 48 hours

The difference of political ideologies and governance has also divided both countries. The Islamic Republic of Iran is based on the principle of Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists, which holds that a faqīh (Islamic jurist) should have custodianship over all Muslim followers, including their governance and regardless of nationality. Iran’s Supreme Leader is a Shia faqīh.

Obviously, therefore, Turkey has taken a calculated risk in undertaking steps to unite Islamic nations to serve the cause of Islam against the wishes of USA-Israel led anti-Islamic world. This is ridiculous in the face of   imperialist threats from anti-Islamic world.

Escalation of tensions

Apparently, the enemies of Islam that have been at work to weaken and destabilize Muslim nations, forcing even Muslims to make Islam look like a terrorist religion, have succeeded in making Muslim nations fight and hate each other. The crudest example is tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran, viewing each other enemies.

So much so, Saudi Arabia is reportedly taking the help of arch foe of Islam Israel to defeat Iran.

The latest round of tensions began when Riyadh and Tehran broke off diplomatic relations in January 2016, after Iranians stormed Saudi Arabia’s embassy and consulate in response to the execution of a prominent Shiite cleric. That followed the 2015 nuclear deal between Tehran and six world powers, which Riyadh feared was a step towards ending Iran’s international isolation.

The main cause of the current tensions is related to the proxy confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, particularly the wars in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Recent months have seen changes in these confrontations that appear to have brought the tensions to a head.

In Iraq and Syria, the increasingly successful campaign against ISIS has changed the situation on the ground. Offensives in both countries have forced the jihadists from nearly all the territory they seized in mid-2014.

As the threat from a common enemy “has imploded, tensions between these historic adversaries have escalated,” said Max Abrahms, professor of political science at Northeastern University in Boston.

Rhetoric between the two grew increasingly belligerent, including over Saudi Arabia’s Gulf neighbor Qatar. Riyadh and several of its Sunni allies broke off diplomatic relations with Qatar in June 2017, accusing Doha of support for extremism and links with Iran, claims that it denies.

In November, the animosity reached new heights. First, the Saudi-supported prime minister of Lebanon, Saad Hariri, in a broadcast from Riyadh announced his resignation, blaming Iran’s “grip” on his country via Shiite movement Hezbollah. Several hours later, Saudi Arabia said its air defenses near Riyadh intercepted and destroyed a missile fired from Yemen, where a Saudi-led coalition is battling Iran-backed Shiite rebels.

That set off a fierce war of words between Riyadh and Tehran, with Saudi Arabia’s powerful Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman accusing Iran of “direct military aggression.” Tehran denied any involvement in the missile attack, with President Hassan Rouhani warning that Iranian “might” would fend off any challenge.

As Iraq looks to a post-ISIS era, Riyadh has been taking steps to build stronger ties with the country’s Shiite-dominated government. A flurry of visits between the two countries this year saw talk of a warming of ties, including a trip by Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi to Riyadh in late October.

 

A war against Islam?

Saudi Arabia’s rhetoric does not necessarily reflect interest in war, consulting firm Eurasia Group said, pointing to a potential domestic reason for Riyadh’s combative tone.

The new Prince Mohammed is looking to leverage the nationalist rhetoric to solidify his position as he pursues an anti-corruption purge some see as an attempt to cement and strengthen his hold on power. At the same time, escalatory statements against Iran help shift the media attention away from the domestic power struggle.

The election as US president a year ago of Zionist Donald Trump has also contributed to the rise in tensions. Trump’s open hostility towards Tehran has released anti-Iranian energies in the Arabian Peninsula” and emboldened Riyadh. One of the Saudi demands on USA is to contain Iran’s influences in the region and elsewhere and, like Israel, it also wants USA to attack Iran and kill as many Shiites as Sunnis whom the US led NATO rouge states murdered. .

Saudi Arabia was a key financial backer of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during his 1980-1988 war with Iran. With Iraq weakened following the 1991 Gulf War, Saudi Arabia and Iran became the two main regional powers. Religious tensions have heightened since the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq under the pretext of searching for WMD and one Osama that brought the majority Shiites to power in Baghdad instead of Saddam’s Sunni-dominated regime. The US president, who talks about rule of law and democracy, murdered President Saddam mainly for his anti-American stance. But the triclomacy of USA and Europe that could not be decoded by Arab rulers who enjoy huge wealth and have kept much of them in USA and UK, have divided them.

In Syria, meanwhile, the Iran-backed government of President Bashar al-Assad has over the past year managed to reassert control over large parts of the country by defeating, among others, rebel groups backed by Riyadh. “The Saudi-Iranian rivalry has become the organizing principle for Mideast alliances, reminiscent of how the Cold War divided countries along USA and Soviet lines.

While the increase in tensions has raised serious concerns, few expect an outright military confrontation. “A broader regional conflict remains unlikely, Riyadh would instead look to use the latest missile incident to push for further sanctions against Tehran. Both sides would steer clear of open conflict. Iran has experience of the war with Iraq … and Saudi Arabia is bogged down in Yemen, after failing to define the future of the Syrian revolution and counter Iran’s influence in Iraq

(To follow: Meaningless Saudi-Iran rivalry –II; Rivalry and cooperation; Saudi’s compulsions after Arab Spring; Cold war or intractable conflict; Why reconciliation quite possible?)

 

 

 

__________

Occupied Kashmir: India pays price for collective crime and guilt!

Occupied Kashmir: India pays price for collective crime and guilt!

–   Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

________

 

Kashmir today is no more a paradise.  It is now a land of curfews, military shots, demonstrations, cross board terrorism cum trade, unrest. Kashmir is also now known as a land of secret grave yards controlled by Indian military.

India is the cause of the tragedy of Kashmir.

It is worthwhile to keep briefing the world about the pathetic and endangered existence of Kashmiris under Indian brutal occupational target. Kashmir is one of the most heavily policed and militarized places in the world, with estimates of Indian security forces in the region at well over 700,000 (the government of India refuses to release official numbers). It bears underlining that the population of Kashmir is approximately 5.5 million, which means that there is one security officer for every eight Kashmiris. Before the partition of India, the dominant politics of the movement for Kashmiri independence, led by Sheikh Abdullah, were a heady mix of socialism and nationalism, not political Islam as is often claimed by contemporary analysts.

When the British left India after ruling India for several hundred years, the 565 prince states, which had maintained a degree of political autonomy through treaties with the British, were given the choice of acceding either to India or Pakistan or remaining independent. Maharaja Hari Singh, the then Hindu rule with Hindu mindset, quickly negotiated an accession to India in exchange for military support. But under the terms of the agreement, Kashmir was to be allowed a referendum to determine the will of the people on the question of accession. Indian PM Jawaharlal Nehru, despite publicly proclaiming his support for the plebiscite ultimately reneged on his promise as he was scared that Kashmiris would either go to Pakistan or stay independent and never would join India.

Indian position has remained the same even today even after years of socio-politic engineering in Kashmir but now the former paradise on earth has become a spot of state terror and secret graveyards.  Kashmir has become a pawn in the cynical and deadly game between India and Pakistan. India uses Kashmir to claim that it is a democratic society but does so by rigging elections, importing pliable Hindu rulers, imprisoning elected leaders, and brutally oppressing the population

Kashmiris keep suffering the barbaric Indian crackdown. The last decade of Kashmir resistance has been characterized by secular, democratic opposition to the policies of the Indian state, a reality that goes against all of the mainstream propaganda that Kashmir is another front in the war on terror. The reason as to why Kashmir is so brutally repressed is because the Indian state is now governed by an ideology that requires the fiction of a massive security threat in order to justify exorbitant expenditures on its military and police forces. This fiction is propped up by an ideology that amalgamates Hindu chauvinism, neoliberalism, and authoritarian statecraft. The result has been the wholesale criminalization of even the mildest form of public protest.

Intolerance!

 

The conflict in Kashmir has potentially catastrophic consequences beyond the sufferings of the Kashmiri people. The Himalayan territory is a major bone of contention between India and neighbouring Pakistan, nuclear-armed foes who have already fought three wars for control of Kashmir, in 1947-48, 1965 and again in 1999. The 1947-48 war, fought while both armies were still under British generals, resulted in the partition of Kashmir. Hundreds of thousands of troops still face each other across the Line of Control, the de facto border dividing Kashmir. The on-off “peace talks” between the two countries were abruptly halted following the criminal 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai which killed 174 people and for which India blamed Pakistan.

Indian regime is fully aware of the fact that leaving Kashmir alone for self rule and soverign politics can lead to normalcy in India and region and prosperity of Kashmir as an independent nation as it existed till 1947 when India dramatically sent the millenary there to occupy under the pretext of denying the Pakistani Muslims to take over Kashmir.

Protests erupted in the summer of 2010 throughout Kashmir, the predominantly Muslim part of India – Jammu Kashmir and Kashmiris have always asserted their independence from India. Throngs of young men and women defiantly hurled stones at Indian occupation forces and set tires on fire to prevent armored vehicles from entering neighborhoods. Their chants were bold—“Go, India, go!”; “Azadi (independence) for Kashmir,” and “Quit Kashmir” -the last being a reference to the slogan of the Indian movement against British colonialism: Quit India.

India has further strengthened occupation forces in Kashmir with extra draconian laws to deal monstrously with Kashmiris. Since 1990, Kashmir has come under the purview of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), which allows, among other things, any soldier or officer to fire upon any group of five or more people or anyone suspected of having a weapon, arrest anyone without a warrant, and conduct home invasions. It also gives military personnel full immunity from prosecution for their actions.

The few media outfits that did cover the protests began calling the movement the Kashmiri Intifada, drawing explicit comparison to the other longstanding occupation in Palestine. For fear of having international opinion turn against it, the Indian government quickly clamped down on all media coverage of the resistance in Kashmir and opened its playbook to its favorite page: the rock throwers in Kashmir were quickly dubbed Islamic terrorists.

India has been ruthless. Protests were met with shootings, lathi (baton) charges, the firing of tear gas, curfews, mass arrests, disappearances, and torture. The viciousness of the crackdown has its basis in the suspension of any legal oversight or consequence for the Indian security apparatus

 

 

 

 Is not India crossing all limits in Kashmir?

Like Israel, India also is damn sure that their crimes in Kashmir  can remain unpunished so long as USA and Russia continue to back it becoming a part of collective crimes. It is no surprise that United Jihad Council said that Indian atrocities in Kashmir have crossed all the limits. It said that the criminal silence of international community has encouraged India to unleash terror in Kashmir Valley.

As per a statement to news agency CNS, Syed Salahuddin, the UJC Chief while addressing a high level meeting said that they way Indian butchered 17 Kashmiris in Shopian and Anantnag and wounded hundreds of people by pellets and bullets amply proves that India has completely failed to suppress the freedom sentiments of people of Kashmir. Salahuddin expressed anguish over the silence of international community and said that people of Kashmir have right to question the role of international organizations. “Despite knowing the fact that the struggle of people of Kashmir is based on just international organizations doesn’t act against India. These organizations even know when India fails to kill a Kashmiri, it makes him disable whole life,” he said and paid glorious tributes to slain militants and civilians.   “Instead of reading the writing on the wall, India wants to strengthen its occupation in Jammu and Kashmir using all the military tactics,” he said.

Kashmir has been turned a land of massacres and south of Kashmir especially Shopian, Tral,  Pulwama,  Kulgam, Anantnag into killing fields drenched in the blood of its natives mostly young boys. Joint Resistance Leadership of Syed Ali Geelani , Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Mohammad Yasin Malik said that the mayhem in Shopian in which 17 people were killed in one day is another gory episode of pain agony and torment that people of Kashmir are repeatedly subject to from time to time over the past thirty years by the military might of GOI that has left more than one lakh Kashmiris dead and hundreds of thousands maimed injured and blinded.

The scenes at the hospital are heart wrenching as the injured writhing in pain have horrific episodes of forces brutality to narrate. Houses have been blown up and razed to ground and even the owners have not been spared the bullet and killed. What is equally cruel and inhuman is that local resident Mushtaq Ahmed Thakur was used as a human shield by the Indian forces and was killed.  JRL said that the vengeful way that bullets and pellets were showered on protesting people left four people dead on spot while more than 50 sustained critical bullet injuries and are battling for life in hospitals. “More than 200 people have been hit by pellets many among them in their eyes which can lead to blindness as has been witnessed.”

JRL said that there is deep pain and anger among people as they witness killings of young boys who feel forced to take up arms as a means of resisting oppression and forcible control over their land. These young boys give up their studies and stake their future because of the lingering Kashmir dispute and the status quo over it  due to GOI arrogance and stubbornness not to resolve it, and the resulting oppression pushes these young boys to to take up arms to liberate their land. JRL said that the protest shut down over the mayhem in Shopian will

The entire Resistance and Hurriyat leadership will move towards Shopian to express solidarity with the people and offer condolences to the bereaved families who lost their loved ones. Leadership will also address a public rally in Shopian. People have been asked to peacefully protest Shopian killings at their local mosques after Zuhr Prayers. The claims made by the agencies of the Ruling regime that leadership is now free to move stands completely exposed as within two days of it we were again put under arbitrary house arrest and Yasin Sahab detained in jail.

Authorities disallow Syed Ali  Geelani from offering funeral prayers for the slain youth in Hyderpora  as that would make Kashmiris embolden and India  vulnerable.  Hurriyat Conference led by Geelani had also called people to offer absentia funeral prayers of slain youth, but police authorities scuttled the move.

Soon as Hurriyat chairman Syed Ali Geelani attempted to come out of his residence to offer funeral in absentia, he was stopped by police.  Hurriyat said that Geelani is not only a political personality, but a religious preacher as well and keeping him away from people’s political, religious and social issues is ample proof of this part of land being governed by “an autocratic, undemocratic and unjustified rule. It tantamount to interference in religious matters, Huriyat said saying authorities are suffering from arrogance and frustration.

Referring to the statement of Police DG, wherein he has said that Geelani is now free, Huriyat said that their rhetoric for freedom of speech proved hoax as political and religious leaders are continuously caged and political space denied. Syed Ali Geelani blamed the Indian authorities, their henchmen in state, police and other government forces for these brutal killings. Calling as unfortunate the killing of civilians in Shopian shootout Geelani added that these forces are resorting to their terror policies to carry their unauthorized rule.

Geelani paid tributes to slain youth in Shopian shootout and said that those who lay their lives for a sacred cause, are alive with their Lord and receive sustenance from Him.’’  Blaming Indian authorities for their arrogance and stubborn attitude , Syed Ali Geelani said, we are not being allowed to mourn even our slain youngsters and while denouncing authorities for laying curbs on condolences meeting in memory of slain youth,   Geelani justified the resentment shown by youth in Kashmir and said our youth were taking up arms “to put an end to slavery and this barbarity”.

It is not just a passion however a growing resentment among youth and it is the outcome of unresolved Kashmir issue , unending curbs on political activities, stubborn attitude and has created political uncertainty in the state. Our youth are quite disheartened as peaceful activities are denied,” Geelani asserted and added that “the insensitivity and unconcern of authorities in New Delhi is the sole reason for this unabated bloodshed. Youth have no option but to resent this age-old slavery and take arms to defend their rights.

Lamenting at pro-Indian politicians for prevailing political uncertainty and bloodshed in state, Geelani said that they are playing with the sentiments of people and acting as henchmen for New Delhi in state. Syed Ali Geelani strongly condemned the use of brute and disproportionate force against peaceful and unarmed civilians and said that opening fire on unarmed people shows the height of state terrorism. “India has declared war against civilians in the state, saying nowhere on earth brute force is used against unarmed civilians,” said Geelani in a statement.

Commenting over the unfortunate death of Mushtaq Ahmad Thoker, Geelani condemned forces for their inhuman and barbaric approach, saying making humans as shield is inhuman and barbarous act. It tantamount to war crime, saying it is not a first incident, instead Indian forces as a routine are making human souls as shields, saying they are virtually engaged in genocide in state.

Jammu Kashmir is highly militarized zone, said Geelani and in presence of forces camps in every nook and corner people feel insecure and are reeling under continuous threat. These camps are source of nuisance and badly affected the lives of citizens living in these localities, said he, saying the lives, honour, dignity of civilians is at stake.  “This is an inhuman and unjustified act and it vindicates our claim that forces are involved in war crimes and are patronized and encouraged by Indian leadership,” Geelani said and added that it sends a clear message to the people that “they can go to any extent without any apprehension of accountability”.

Syed Ali Geelani has repeatedly appealed to human rights organisations, the International War Tribunal and Amnesty International to take cognizance of the incident and fulfill their responsibilities in saving precious lives in Jammu Kashmir.

Trader bodies express anguish over Kashmir killings

Kashmir Traders and Manufacturers Federation (KTMF), held a protest demonstration at commercial hub Lal Chowk in Srinagar against the “killing spree” in Kashmir.   Scores of traders assembled near historic clock tower in Lal Chowk and held a demonstration against the killings of four civilians in Shopian on Sunday. They demanded the government to take cognizance of the situation prevalent here and stop killings forthwith.

Later, the traders tried to take out a march towards United Nations headquarters at Sonwar here. However, huge posse of government forces already deployed near Polo view prevented them from marching ahead. Many traders were also detained by forces   Meanwhile, other traders bodies including Kashmir Traders Federation and Kashmir Economic Alliance strongly condemned the killing of militants and civilians.  Chief Spokesperson Kashmir Traders Federation, Ajaz Shahdhar said that it is a preplanned genocide. “These killings are condemnable and an indication, how people in Kashmir can be butchered anytime without any mercy,” he said.  Co-Chairperson Kashmir Economic Alliance Farooq Ahmed Dar while expressing grief over these killings said that hearts of every Kashmiri are bleeding as our youth are being continuously killed on one pretext or the other.”

India’s Zionist murders in Kashmir

Of late, New Delhi prefers the Zionist terror techniques in dealing with Kashmiris.

Clearly, colonialist India and Zionist criminal Israel pursue a joint strategy in Kashmir being occupied and targeted by blood thirsty Hindutva forces in state uniform for Muslim blood. Even as Israel kills the besieged Palestinians, India which is corrupt and produces institutionalized frauds, also resorts to murders in occupied Kashmir as its prerogatives- both of these pork-beef eaters target Muslims.

Indian occupied Kashmir observed a shutdown against the killing of 13 militants and 4 civilians for the 2nd consecutive day last week. These killings have sent shock waves and led to massive anger among the population. Reports said that shops and business establishments remained shut while transport also remained off the roads. The authorities apprehending large scale protests had put restrictions at numerous places across Kashmir. Internet services continued to remain suspended on second straight day. Commercial establishments and offices also remained closed, while government had ordered closure of all educational institutions. All examinations scheduled on Monday were also postponed by all three universities including Kashmir University, Islamic University and Central University. Public transport was off the roads.

The call for shutdown was forwarded by Joint Resistance Leadership comprising Syed Ali Geelani, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Muhammad Yasin Malik.   Geelani, Muhammad Ashraf Sehrai and Mirwaiz were placed under house arrest while Malik was arrested from his home and shifted to Kothibagh police station.

To thwart possible protests, authorities enforced restrictions in Srinagar particularly in downtown areas. Barricades were put in place to curb civilian movement. Forces personnel were also seen in areas enforcing restrictions. A vital road link leading to Kashmir’s tertiary care hospital SKIMS was kept open and scattered private vehicles were seen plying on it.

India upset that Kashmiris have resorted to stone pelting in retaliation of military terror attacks. Indian military wants the Kashmiri demonstrators to take weapons to attack them so that the military could put down ruthlessly. Stone-pelting incidents were reported from some parts of Srinagar city including Qamarwari, Maloora and Parimpora. Minor stone-pelting incident was reported from uptown Rambagh area. Youth also hurled stones on deployed forces at Batamaloo Srinagar.

Reports said that protesters who were protesting against the killings had blocked the road. Police fired tear-smoke shells to disperse the protesters while youth pelted stones on the deployed forces. Witnesses said that a Sub-Inspector and two protesters were injured in the clashes.   Authorities imposed severe restrictions in all the four districts of South Kashmir including Pulwama, Kulgam, Shopian and Anantnag.

Amid strict restrictions, clashes erupted at Gol Chowk Shopian. Youth pelted stones on deployed forces while in retaliation, government forces fired pellets and tear smoke shells to disperse them. Eyewitnesses and reports said that three youth suffered pellet injuries who were hospitalized.

In Shopian, Doctors and paramedical staff held a protest against the alleged indiscriminate firing by the forces inside the premises of sub-district hospital Shopian.  The doctors said that forces fired several rounds at the casualty block and the blood bank inside the hospital following a heated argument with a doctor who asked them to let them do their duty of treating the people injured in Sunday’s clashes.

The doctors and para-medics presented a memorandum to the DC over the last night firing incident. Before meeting the DC, the doctors and the paramedical staff held a sit-in outside the hospital. The doctors conveyed to DC that forces resorted to unprovoked firing inside the hospital premises.

Reports from Pulwama said that agitated protesters attacked CRPF Bunker of 183 Battalion with stones. The troopers and police personnel lobbed sound shells to disperse the protesters who were protesting against the militant and civilian killings.  Clashes erupted at Namlabal Cross KP road, Harnag and Seer Hamdan in South Kashmir’s Anantnag district. Reports said that at least four youth suffered pellet injuries in Seer Hamdan during massive clashes. Large number of youth protested against the civilian and militant killings.

Funeral prayers in absentia were offered for slain 13 militants and 4 civilians in North Kashmir’s Bandipora district. Reports said that a large number of people participated in the funeral prayers.

Reports from Kulgam said that undeclared curfew and restrictions remained in vogue while large number of people participated in the last rites of slain civilian Mehrajuddin Mir at Okey Kulgam. Back to Back funeral prayers were offered for two slain militants at Paddarpora Shopian. They were buried amid pro-freedom slogans.    Minor clashes were reported from Baagh, main chowk Bandipora and Kalossa.

A complete shutdown was also observed in several areas of Ramban district in Jammu region against the killing of seventeen persons, including four civilians, in Shopian district of south Kashmir killings. Reports said the highway town of Banihal, Khari, Tethar and Chareel in Ramban district observed complete shutdown. All the business establishments and shops remained shut.

Former Jammu Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has expressed alarm over more and more local youths joining militant ranks and has blamed Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti for the new trend which, he said, has emerged after killing of Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani two years ago. “Of the 12 confirmed dead, I understand 11 are local Kashmiris & (and) the identity of the 12th is being ascertained, not one so far is a foreign terrorist. Is no one in a position of power in Delhi alarmed by this because I certainly am!” Omar said in a series of tweets. In yet another tweet, Omar wrote: “So while all this was unfolding the chief minister didn’t see (it) fit to cut short her Delhi trip. What was so important to have kept her there?” he asked. Omar said most of the militants killed yesterday had joined the militancy after killing of Burhan Wani in an encounter with the security forces in July 2016. “Creations of the post-Burhan Wani rage, most of the militants killed yesterday were new recruits,” he added. The conflict in Kashmir has potentially catastrophic consequences beyond the sufferings of the Kashmiri people. The Himalayan territory is a major bone of contention between India and neighbouring Pakistan, nuclear-armed foes who have already fought three wars for control of Kashmir, in 1947-48, 1965 and again in 1999. The 1947-48 war, fought while both armies were still under British generals, resulted in the partition of Kashmir. Hundreds of thousands of troops still face each other across the Line of Control, the de facto border dividing Kashmir. The on-off “peace talks” between the two countries were abruptly halted following the criminal 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai which killed 174 people and for which India blamed Pakistan.

The conflict in Kashmir has potentially catastrophic consequences beyond the sufferings of the Kashmiri people. The Himalayan territory is a major bone of contention between India and neighbouring Pakistan, nuclear-armed foes who have already fought three wars for control of Kashmir, in 1947-48, 1965 and again in 1999. The 1947-48 war, fought while both armies were still under British generals, resulted in the partition of Kashmir. Hundreds of thousands of troops still face each other across the Line of Control, the de facto border dividing Kashmir. The on-off “peace talks” between the two countries were abruptly halted following the criminal 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai which killed 174 people and for which India blamed Pakistan.

The conflict in Kashmir has potentially catastrophic consequences beyond the sufferings of the Kashmiri people. The Himalayan territory is a major bone of contention between India and neighbouring Pakistan, nuclear-armed foes who have already fought three wars for control of Kashmir, in 1947-48, 1965 and again in 1999. The 1947-48 war, fought while both armies were still under British generals, resulted in the partition of Kashmir. Hundreds of thousands of troops still face each other across the Line of Control, the de facto border dividing Kashmir. The on-off “peace talks” between the two countries were abruptly halted following the criminal 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai which killed 174 people and for which India blamed Pakistan.

The conflict in Kashmir has potentially catastrophic consequences beyond the sufferings of the Kashmiri people. The Himalayan territory is a major bone of contention between India and neighbouring Pakistan, nuclear-armed foes who have already fought three wars for control of Kashmir, in 1947-48, 1965 and again in 1999. The 1947-48 war, fought while both armies were still under British generals, resulted in the partition of Kashmir. Hundreds of thousands of troops still face each other across the Line of Control, the de facto border dividing Kashmir. The on-off “peace talks” between the two countries were abruptly halted following the criminal 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai which killed 174 people and for which India blamed Pakistan.

 

Repression and resistance in occupied Kashmir

Even after years of struggle for independence, much of Kashmir remains under the control of the Indian government. That is indeed the strength India, occupation forces and its media rods. In fact his aspect makes Indian regime feel greatness.

 

True, Indian military forcefully occupying Jammu Kashmir have killed mover 100,000  innocent Kashmiris, mostly Muslims, driven many from their homes to escape brutality and oppression  of Indian  state criminals in Kashmir,  but Indians suffer mental agony  because of continued  terror menace.

In recent months the Indian state has stepped up its murderous repression of the majority Muslim population in the Kashmir Valley.  More than 60 people have been killed in the latest shootings and hundreds injured, many of them teenagers.

Moreover, more and more Indians are convinced that their military and regime are responsible for the terrorism in India and the region by targeting Kashmirs who in turn get equipped and retaliate.

Blood for blood!

Still India, like its strategic partner Israel, is happy to kill Muslims cable of killing the remaining Kashmiris with Zionist terror goods.

Though Indian media report that more and more Kashmiri Muslims are being “tracked” for fake encounters and many more killed to appease the fanatic Hindus in Indian mainland.

The latest round of killings is but the continuation of decades of repression of the Kashmiri people’s struggle against national oppression. Since 1990, when around 100 unarmed demonstrators were shot dead by Indian troops on Gawakadal Bridge in the summer capital Srinagar, as many as 80,000 have been killed. The Indian military maintains an occupying force of nearly 700,000 troops and paramilitaries there, enforcing a brutal regime of curfews, arbitrary arrests, executions, rape and torture.

Education as best as can is the right of every Kashmiri. Thousands more young men and women in Kashmir have seen their dreams of an international education or career die young for want of passports. Like its strategic partner Israel, India also has used passports as a weapon to discipline and punish Kashmiri dissidents who have sought to challenge India’s control over Kashmir.

Any Kashmiri nationalist who had been engaged in non-violent activism to realize the idea of an independent Kashmir, has been denied a passport by the Indian government, thereby inhibiting his right to free movement.   The impossibilities and the lack of freedom that the Indian military occupation of Kashmir had imposed on Kashmiris make every Kashmiri feel suffocated  in their nation. Kashmiri families and relatives are denied the right to travel beyond the borders of “Incredible India”.

International law, as per Article 12 of the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, guarantees an individual the right to free travel. India, with an increasing global clout, has grossly violated its international treaty obligations. The denial of travel documents has adversely affected all the spheres of civil society with consequences on education, trade, religion, employment and human rights.

The Indian state’s widespread use of repressive measures to silence and criminalize political dissent dates back to 1947, when pro-Pakistan parties such as the Muslim Conference, the Kisan Mazdoor Conference, the Kashmir Socialist Party and the Kashmir Democratic Union clamored for Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan.

From 1948 to 1953, the National Conference government in Indian-controlled Kashmir, which was led by Sheikh Abdullah and backed by India’s federal government, either arrested or exiled the leadership of pro-Pakistan parties. Ironically, Sheikh Abdullah, the first prime minister of Kashmir, was arbitrarily removed from power and imprisoned on August 9, 1953, after he indicated to US diplomat Loy Henderson his desire to see Kashmir as an independent country. In the years between 1953 and 1974, India hoisted client regimes in Kashmir, which stifled political dissent and promoted a relentless campaign of state terror.

In 1975, the former prime minister of Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah, signed the “Kashmir Accord”. This compromise with the then Indian prime minister, Indira Gandhi, established the resignation of Abdullah’s support for the plebiscite movement in Kashmir in return for the Indian government’s promise of restoring nominal autonomy to Kashmir within the Indian Union

To repress this new wave of political dissent, the Jammu and Kashmir government promulgated the draconian Public Safety Act in 1978. The act allowed the authorities to carry out “preventive detention” of peaceful dissenters on vague grounds of being a threat to law and order. Dissidents such as Syed Ali Shah Geelani of Jamaat-e-Islami, People’s League leaders including Farooq Rehmani, Shabir Ahmad Shah, Sheikh Abdul Aziz and many others were repeatedly booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Maintenance of Internal Security Act – which replaced the Preventive Detention Act in 1971 – and the Public Safety Act on charges of “preaching sedition and challenging the state’s accession to India”.

Observation

 

Both India and Pakistan are beholden to the imperialist powers, today chiefly the USA. The antagonism between the two countries, as well as the attendant communal and ethnic divisions, is the legacy of a deliberate policy of divide-and-rule practiced by the British imperialists as colonial overlords of the subcontinent.

Kashmir is strategically placed on India’s borders not only with Pakistan and Afghanistan, but also with China, which controls Aksai Chin, a territory that India claims as part of Kashmir. The Tawang district in Arunachal Pradesh is also disputed by India and China who fought a war in 1962. Today the rivalry between the two countries is acute.

Kashmir epitomizes the seething complex of national and communal conflicts that extend from Afghanistan to Pakistan and India. The brutal repression in Kashmir, the only majority Muslim state in India, gives the lie to New Delhi’s claims that it is a “secular” democracy. The Indian state was founded on naked Hindu chauvinism and brutal oppression of minorities has been the rule under the “secular” Congress party, as well as the avowedly chauvinist BJP. Today India’s much vaunted economic progress has brought fabulous wealth to a tiny elite while the vast majority of workers and peasants are mired in abject poverty. Age-old caste oppression remains pervasive while women are the slaves of slaves throughout the subcontinent.

For Pakistan, Kashmir represents its pretence to stand for “one nation” of all Muslims. Pakistan’s rulers can ill afford to support independence for Kashmir, which would pose the same question for the minorities within its own borders, including Baluchis, Pathans and Sindhis, who chafe under Punjabi domination. But Pakistan itself is an artificial state — Pathans are divided between Pakistan and Afghanistan; Baluchis between Iran and Pakistan and today such ethnic divisions are once again being exacerbated by the US and British imperialist occupation of Afghanistan.

The key to ending the national oppression of the Kashmiri people, as well as the myriad sufferings wrought by capitalism, is the fight for socialist revolution throughout the subcontinent and the establishment of a socialist federation of South Asia. For that it is necessary to forge Leninist-Trotskyist parties which would seek to mobilize the powerful proletariat of India and Pakistan at the head of all the oppressed to sweep away the capitalist system. Indian and Pakistani workers in the Diaspora in Britain, the US, Canada and elsewhere form a human bridge to the working class in the imperialist centres where socialist revolution can lay the basis for a socialist future for mankind.

Human rights abuses in the Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir state are an ongoing issue. The abuses range from mass killings, enforced disappearances, torture, rape and sexual abuse to political repression and suppression of freedom of speech. The Indian Army, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Border Security Personnel (BSF) and various separatist militant groups have been accused and held accountable for committing severe human rights abuses against Kashmiri civilians.

Crimes by militants are said to be incomparable with the larger scale abuse by Indian state forces. Some rights groups say close to 100,000 people have died since 1989 while the official figures from Indian sources state the estimates of number of civilians killed due to the insurgency in the range of 16,725  to 47,000 civilians, in which 3,642 civilians were killed by security forces. The Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society organisation states that there have been over 70,000 killings, 8000 plus forced disappearances, mass torture and sexual violence, the majority committed by Indian armed forces, and that these cases have had zero prosecution in civilian courts. India accuses the Pakistan Army for abusing human rights in Jammu and Kashmir by violating the ceasefire and continuing to kill Kashmiri civilians, a claim which is totally rejected by Pakistan who blames Indian army for the violation of LoC. . Diplomatic cables obtained by Wikileaks revealed that the ICRC had briefed US officials in Delhi in 2005 about the use of torture from 2002–2004 by security forces against hundreds of detainees suspected of being connected to or having information about militants.

United Nations has expressed serious concerns over large number of killings by Indian security forces. Human Rights groups have also accused the Indian security forces of using child soldiers, although the Indian government denies this allegation. Torture, widely used by Indian security sources, whose severity is described as beyond comprehension by Amnesty International, has been responsible for the huge number of deaths in custody.  Amnesty International accused security forces of exploiting the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) that enables them to “hold prisoners without trial”. The group argues that the law, which allows security to detain individuals for as many as two years “without presenting charges, violating prisoners’ human rights”. The Army sources maintain that “any move to revoke AFSPA in Jammu and Kashmir would be detrimental to the security of the Valley and would provide a boost to the terrorists

Most Indians feel sorry for the state of affairs in Kashmir where Indian forces keep attacking and killing Kashmiris. They seek peaceful resolution so that they also live like humans with dignity; They may not say it in words. India has to take the call and resolve the Kashmir flash. The issue should be resolved amicably so that Kashmir becomes a friend of India. One Kashmiri problem is off Indian agenda Indian leaders will have the time and mind to think seriously about the future peace course for India.

The unfortunate reality in Kashmir is that it is extremely similar to Palestine, where the indigenous population lacks the necessary social force to repel the violence of Zionist occupation forces. But just as the Palestinians have allies in the surrounding states, the Kashmiris have allies in both Pakistan and India who have no interest in occupation, in fact whose lives would immediately be improved if both Pakistan and India were to stop spending Himalayan sums on security personnel and instead spend money on eradicating poverty. The Indian and Pakistani working classes have common enemies—their own states—and the end to the occupation in Kashmir will only be the result of their unified struggle.

Pakistan should rejuvenate its diplomatic strategy with regard to Kashmir while the political leadership of Kashmir be united and foil the evil designs of the enemy.

The military approach of Indian regime to deal with the Kashmir dispute is consuming even the next generations which is a matter of grave concern for all of Kashmiris and Indians. India should by now have fully realized that force and might not deter people from pursuing their just cause even at the cost of their lives. New Delhi therefore will have to engage with the dispute and give people their basic right to self determination.

With its terror strategy, India has made India a bad place to live with dignity except for the rich corporate lords and wealthy politicians. Kashmir problem cross border state terrorism has made the region unsafe.

India should realize all its diplomatic tricks and terror strategy have failed and Kashmiris are more determined to have their beloved sovereignty than ever in the history of Kashmir which is dotted with foreign occupations.

The sooner it is done the better it is for India, Pakistan, Kashmir and the whole region.