Your address will show here +12 34 56 78

After acquittals in Bahrain’s highest criminal court, an appeals court sentenced three senior opposition leaders to life in prison.

Al-Wefaq leader Sheikh Ali Salman, Sheikh Hassan Sultan and Ali al-Aswad were sentenced on November 4.  The trio was charged with hostile acts and “communicating with Qatari officials… to overthrow constitutional order,” according to a statement from the public prosecutor.

Al-Wefaq is one of Bahrain’s largest political parties, and in 2010 parliamentary elections they received 64% of the popular vote.  However, the party only received 18 of 40 seats in the lower house, and they have now been banned for competing in parliamentary elections later this month.

Despite election popularity, the party is considered an opposition party because Bahrain is a constitutional monarchy with the monarchy enjoying concentrated power.  King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa appoints the government, and Bahrain has had the same prime minister, Prince Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa, since 1971.  Al Khalifa is the current longest-serving prime minister in the world.

After the 2010 parliamentary elections, Al-Wefaq has been struggling in its opposition role.  In 2016, Bahrain’s courts ordered the group to be dissolved, suspended the group’s activities and froze their assets.

Al-Wefaq is so precariously positioned in Bahraini politics because not only are they the government’s opposition, but they are the Shia opposition to the Sunni monarchy.  Religious differences have been a driver for disagreements between the two factions.  Sunni allies Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have come to Bahrain’s aid in stamping out the country’s Shia opposition, including a 2011 uprising.

The allegation of an Al-Wefaq conspiracy with Qatar comes at a tense time between Qatar and its regional neighbours.  Friction between Qatar and its neighbours boils down an issue similar to Bahrain and its Shia opposition.

Qatar has a Shia majority like many neighbouring countries, but Saudi Arabia and other regional powers are upset with Qatar pivoting toward an alliance with Iran.  When the Saudi-led consortium of states issued the blockade against Qatar they listed 13 demands for Qatar to abide by, prominently including curbing ties with Iran.

Bahrain joined in on the Qatari blockade and is now turning their ire once again to Doha through the accusations against their opposition leaders.  Qatar has denied participating in collusion with Al-Wefaq and the foreign ministry condemned the allegation that Qatar was meddling in Bahraini internal politics.

In the 13 demands, the blockading countries also required Qatar to cease meddling in internal politics of other states.

Linking Al-Wefaq to Qatar is a calculated move on behalf of Bahrain, and it delegitimizes two opponents at once.  If proven to be true, Qatar would be violating several of the conditions to end the blockade, and Al-Wefaq would be conspiring with an unfriendly state.

This development also comes before parliamentary elections in late November.  Bahrain has gone further than banning opposition parties as they are now neutralizing their leadership through the judicial process.

The United States and the United Kingdom have publicly denounced Bahrain for its electoral repression, but the state has been emboldened by the Qatari blockade.

Unhindered by international condemnation, the Bahraini regime has sentenced other opposition activists to jail sentences ranging from three to 10 years.  Along with the sentencing for opposition leaders, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have declared the actions of Bahrain are unjust.

Bahrain has Western international opinion against them, however, their regional allies will not come out against the move.  In October, Bahrain supported Saudi Arabia after the Jamal Khashoggi case became an international story.  Bahrain and Saudi Arabia will remain close through thick and thin.

In terms of Western allies, Bahrain has complicated ties to the United States.  America expressed concern about Bahrain’s upcoming elections, but it is unimaginable that the White House will interfere considering the ties between the countries.

Bahrain expelled American Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Tom Malinowski after he visited with Al-Wefaq leaders in 2014.  The Bahraini government accused Malinowski of operating counter to diplomatic norms, and the diplomat argued Bahrain was attempting to suppress a dialogue.

But, US Secretary of Defense James Mattis seems more magnanimous in his approach to Bahrain and the region.  Mattis gave a policy speech in Bahrain in late October, during which he condemned both the Khashoggi killing and the “hysterical” global reaction.

Defense Secretary Mattis is a staunch opponent of Iran, and President Trump has expressed support for the Saudi regime.  Some American senators may express concern about Bahraini elections and Saudi Arabian transgressions, but that concern is unlikely to be shared by the White House.

In the short term, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are benefitting from a cozy relationship with the United States, and opposition leaders are struggling.  But, they run the risk of enraging a large segment of the American and international community who may take up positions against Trump for posterity’s sake. 



In a victory for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, Jordan and Israel both reopened border crossings with war-torn Syria.  The recent developments are indicative of Assad’s reasserted control in southern Syria.

Assad was able to secure control of the area in large part due to Russia airstrikes that drove out rebel forces. Rebel forces seized control of the two border crossings in 2015 and cut off important trade and peacekeeping routes.

On October 15, Jordan reopened the Nasib border, a vital trade artery that opens Syria up to regional export trade through Jordan.  Along with Syria, the Jordanian and Lebanese economies will also benefit through increased employment and trade.

Lebanon will see massive economic benefits from the border reopening as Syria is the country’s only usable land connection.  Lebanon’s only other land border is with Israel, but the two countries have no formal ties.  Lebanon’s Minister of Economy and Trade Raed Khoury has previously said that Lebanon’s exports fell by 35% since the Syrian conflict began.

Jordan had previously supported rebels opposed to Assad’s regime, but now that the tide is turning in favour of Assad, Jordan looks to be changing their opinion on the conflict. 

The Syrian border with Turkey remains closed, so the connection with Jordan allows both Syria and Lebanon to re-enter trade with various regional partners land-based trade.

From trade to peacekeeping, Israel reopened the Quneitra crossing in Golan Heights, a point primarily used by United Nations peacekeeping observers.  Russia recaptured the area from rebel forces in July, and Russian forces intend to stay to collaborate with UN forces.

The border is not a formal border between Israel and Syria, and no trade is conducted between the two countries.  However, it does offer the international community a further window into the war-ravaged region.

The border developments are a significant win for the Assad regime, and the reopened borders will bring economic benefits and increased legitimacy.  Many of the surrounding Arabic countries have boycotted Syria since 2011, but now the country has a gateway to reconnection with key neighbours.

Iraq has also expressed interest in reopening their border with Syria and reintegrating the country into the regional community.  The Iraqi foreign minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari even floated the idea of readmitting Syria to the Arab League.

Syria was ousted from the Arab League when the civil war broke out and Assad used repressive and inhumane tactics to control the population.  However, some countries seem to be changing their tune, and economic interests may now supersede disgust at Assad’s previous indiscretions.

Assad will use the increased relations with surrounding countries as evidence of his eventual return to power over the whole country, but in terms of border control, he still has a way to go.

Syria’s relationship with Turkey is still icy, and the nine border points with their neighbor are still closed. Two border crossings are controlled by Turkish allied rebels, and two separate points are controlled by American-backed Kurdish rebels.

Of particular note in recent months has been tensions in one of the last strongholds of the Assad resistance, Syria’s Idlib province. A buffer zone was arranged and rebel groups were to leave by October 15 in order to avoid a Syrian offensive on a region housing hundreds of thousands of displaced civilians.  However, the rebels have yet to leave, and Assad insists his country will act to oust what he views as radical groups.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan recently stated his military will maintain a presence in Idlib for humanitarian purposes, likely in order to prevent another large influx of refugees into Turkey.

While Assad has made progress in some regions of Syria, he still is far off seizing control of the entire country.  Multiple international actors and rebel groups are still at play in the region, and it will not become simple any time soon.

Furthermore, Assad has to contend with international condemnation for his use of chemical weapons in his fight against rebel forces.  A recent BBC report found 106 chemical weapons attacks have occurred in Syria since Assad pledged to destroy the country’ stockpile in 2013.

When the dust settles on the Syrian conflict, international organizations like the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the UN will not take accusations of chemical warfare lightly.  Assad’s regime will face another battle once the war is over, and this one on an international diplomatic stage.

But, the reopening of borders and rhetoric from Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq indicate that Syria is regaining important regional partners in the country’s bid to reintegrate economically and politically with their neighbors.  Economic interests in the region may give Assad the necessary momentum to maintain power in the fragile country.

And, with the movement of people and commerce through the Jordanian border, there has been an indication that the Syrian people just want to return to a version of regular life.  Assad and his neighbors are trying to mend broken ties and reinstate some version of normal in a country and region ravaged by civil war and atrocity


The Arab Spring promised a democratic shift in the Middle East region, and many commentators bought into the passion seen in the eyes of many hopeful protestors.  Egyptian protestors began demonstrating in January 2011 and successfully ousted then President Hosni Mubarak from office.  However, hopeful Egyptians have seen democratic desires dashed, and the populace now lives under the rule of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, a man all too similar to Mubarak.

On 8 September, the world received further confirmation of the democracy movement’s failure in Egypt.  A court upheld death sentences for 75 Muslim Brotherhood members and supporters, including some journalists, for their role in August 2013 protests.

The Muslim Brotherhood was banned under Mubarak, but Sisi has gone further by classifying the controversial religious and political movement as a terrorist group, a decision which has pushed some members to become more radical.  The Muslim Brotherhood was on a high after Mubarak’s ousting as the first democratically elected president Mohamed Morsi came from their newly formed political party.

But, after mass demonstrations against the government within a year of the election, Sisi carried out a military coup and has ruled with an iron fist since becoming the president in 2014.  The court’s ruling on Brotherhood protesters reiterates Sisi’s commitment to stifling political opposition.

The August 2013 protests ended bloody with Human Rights Watch estimating Egyptian security forces killed 817 people for their sit-in protest against Sisi’s coup.   75 deaths will be added to that list after the court affirmed the death penalty for the 75 people allegedly behind the sit-in protest.

The crackdown on the Brotherhood is a calculated move by Sisi, and one with potential international ramifications.  The United States had previously withheld military assistance money to Egypt, but the Trump administration has released upward of $1 billion in military aid to the Egyptian military since July.  The White House has expressed concern about the country’s human rights record, but it sees Egypt as a valuable security partner in the region.

Despite the 8 September ruling, America has doubled down its support for the Egyptian military.  On the same weekend as the announcement of the court’s ruling, a visiting U.S. commander observed joint military drills and said “Egypt is one of our most vital partners in the region.”

Unsurprisingly, America is more concerned with regional security and stability than the democratic freedoms of the average Egyptian.

On the other hand, the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, condemned the mass sentencing.  Other human rights groups have also pointed to the hypocrisy of 75 people being sentenced to death for their role in the protest while no police or security forces have been held accountable for the 817-death toll.

While many in the international human rights community are staunchly against the Egyptian regime, military dollars continue to flow into the country and legitimize Sisi’s rule. Along with the United States, Russia continues to expand their military cooperation with Sisi, and Russia has declared the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.  China has also further expanded economic cooperation with Egypt in recent months.

Legitimacy from foreign governments has strengthened Sisi’s position in Egypt and will likely overpower condemnation from the international community in the short-term.  With this legitimacy, Sisi is consolidating power and limiting freedom to protect his regime from popular uprisings.

The Egyptian president has signed multiple bills into law to limit Egyptian’s free speech on the internet.  According to the Association of Freedom of Thought and Expression in Cairo, hundreds of websites have been blocked within the last year, and social media accounts with more than 5,000 followers can be put under supervision.  Most of the laws and monitoring are under the guise of counterterrorism, but they also function as a control measure on dissent against Sisi’s rule.

With an inactive international community and support from the world’s biggest international players, the largest threat to Sisi’s regime is clearly from within.  And, it is a threat now stifled by draconian laws put in place by a regime wary of the popular discontent which they in part used to ascend to power.

The fate of Egypt and Sisi’s regime largely lies in the economic situation of the country.  At the end of Mubarak’s reign, he began to relax stringent economic policy, but the 2008 financial crisis dampened economic growth and led the Egyptian people to call for a new era in Egyptian politics.

Unfortunately for the Egyptian people, Sisi may have learned from Mubarak’s mistakes, but he still has to balance his authoritarian control with some meaningful economic growth.  His path to economic stability now requires diversification from oil and decreasing the country’s high level of unemployment and poverty.

If Sisi fails to do so, he will likely use the full force of the repressive tools at his disposal and perhaps force Egypt into a similar position it has found itself in years past.



In April of this year Saudi Arabia and France agreed on military cooperation aimed at increasing capacities within the kingdom.  This move will reduce the kingdom’s direct reliance on US military support and is in line with its efforts to improve economic, political, and economic resilience in future years.

The kingdom of Saudi Arabia is facing a multitude of strategic challenges that Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman is seeking to address coherently under his Vision 2030 for the future of the country. The US will need to show stronger diplomatic support for Saudi Arabia to remain a trustworthy partner, as the recent efforts to increase domestic military capacity are also a sign that the Saudi allegiance to the US might be wavering.

The strategy underlying Vision 2030

Vision 2030 stipulates that Saudi Arabia will fundamentally reform its economy to move away from over-reliance on oil revenue. Hence, Aramco, the giant Saudi state-owned oil company is meant to become a more diversified company seeking to play a major role in industrial policy of the country.

In this vein, Muhammad bin Salman has announced that the Kingdom will look to become a more diversified investment powerhouse using its public investment fund. Further, it is planned for the country to play a key role in international trade due to its valuable strategic positioning at the intersection of three continents.

In addition, the Crown Prince plans to put a major focus on increasing employment opportunities within the Kingdom, in a society that has exceptionally low labour market participation and a very young population. These two factors are believed to have majorly contributed to the public discontent sparking the Arab Spring.

This set of reforms can be understood as Bismarckian politics, aimed at ensuring the security and ongoing prosperity of the Kingdom in the face of a young and growingly demanding population, with the shadow of the Arab Spring still very present in the minds of key decision makers. Hence, the drive to improve conditions and opportunities for the population is meant to legitimise the ruling class and social reforms are enacted from above to reduce pressure from below.

The move to diversify the economy is long overdue, and is particularly timely, as oil prices become increasing volatile and its future demand weakening rapidly. This represents not only an economic challenge, but also a diplomatic one, as US interest in the region could conceivably decrease in line with the importance of oil.

Finally, the Kingdom has no interest in losing the race over supremacy in the region to Iran, which in the eyes of Saudi Arabia, has the potential to become an existential threat. The deal with Iran under the Obama administration has strained the relationship with the Saudis. The US used to clearly commit to the country’s supremacy in the region. When US-president Obama effectively suggested for Saudi Arabia to “share the region” with its religious and political arch nemesis Iran, he gave rise to concerns that the US might not be a reliable partner anymore.

Vision 2030 can therefore be seen as a wholesale strategy to increase the independence and security of the ruling class of Saudi Arabia from the potential dangers from within and without. Correspondingly, the turn to increase military production capacities within the country represents a key part of that strategy. The Saudi Military Industries Company (SAMI) that was set up in 2017, will be the vehicle to reduce reliance on outside support.

The US has significantly undermined its trust with the Saudis, as the agreement with Iran, as well as the lack of US support for former allies during the Arab Spring were clearly seen as indicators for the potential volatility of US allegiance to the Saudi family.

Yet, Saudi Arabia remains an integral partner for the US. As it is explicitly pointed out in the Vision 2030 statement, Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam and therefore carries massive weight in the ideological direction of the religion. As a result, Saudi Arabia is a key partner for the US in its efforts to curb Islamic Radicalism.

Further, the US has no interest in further conflict and will therefore be forced to abstain from policy that might destabilise the region. Further military cooperation is imperative to ensure diplomatic trust between the two countries. Yet, this will be connected to significant political costs domestically for the US. Nevertheless, key policy objectives of the US are tied to the survival of the present ruling class of Saudi Arabia as both revolution and the likely chaotic aftermath, as well as further escalation of military conflict would be much costlier.


Economy, Geopolitics

How does a cat react when boxed-in and threatened with existential danger? In a classic “fight or flight” response, and when “flight” is not an option, the cat arches its spine for all-out might and fights back like a multi-headed demon. That’s what the tiny state of Qatar has been doing ever since its detractors boxed-it in—it conjured up a spine of steel and has been fighting back with all the energy and wherewithal it could muster. The outcome shows clearly that from the beginning of the blockade by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt a year ago , Qatar has been playing the hand it was dealt masterfully, outflanking one and all at every turn.

In fact, for a lesson on how to engender a multiplier effect from the sum-total of their resources, large corporations planning all-out public relations campaigns have a lot to learn from how Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani mobilized his country’s full cadre of top lieutenants and pointed everyone—including himself—in every possible game-impacting direction.

Moreover, despite the as yet unresolved Saudi-led boycott, the results have been astounding, be that in regard to Qatar’s current state of the economy, its citizenry’s morale and, arguably, the country’s standing among non-involved nations worldwide. Significantly, to help withstand the trade embargo, Qatar forged ahead with newly-found shipping routes via Oman and displayed its resolve and ability to step up—at warp speed—the development of various self-sufficiency agricultural and local production-type initiatives. The outcome? Qatar recently boasted that the current month of June 2018 will show a 50% increase in its merchandise trade surplus over that of the same month a year ago, and that business conditions in the private, non-oil sector continue to improve over the period just prior to the trade embargo.

Going back to the fateful Riyadh summit of May 2017, when President Trump lectured some 50 Arab leaders on the need to stop financing Jihadist movements, it was then evident that the Saudis and Emiratis had whispered effectively in his ear and gained his support at the expense of the “mischievous” Qataris. Trump bought the argument that Qatar was squarely in the Iranian camp, and that it was indeed a principal source of financing for Hamas and other extremist groups. Since then however, Qatar has made considerable strides in convincing those who can arbiter objectively that the Saudis and Emiratis perhaps had it in for them essentially because of the independent lifestyle of its people and their prevalent posture against tyrannical rule. In addition, Qatar argued—in many quarters convincingly—that the free-wheeling Al-Jazeera, their prime news agency, was the precise symbol that Qatar’s neighbors abhorred the most, and that all the other arguments, including Iran’s stake in their oil and gas industry, were but a smokescreen to hide those other core concerns. Be that as it may, public opinion seems to have shifted on the subject, with Qatar looking all the more judicious.

Furthermore, Qatar-skeptics need only view the current posturing of the American camp, with both Trump himself and Secretary of State Pompeo reversing course and working feverishly to finally find an amicable resolution to the impasse in the Gulf, their concern revolving primarily around not driving Qatar into the Russian camp. This became all the more urgent when Qatar recently threatened to sign on the dotted line for the purchase of S-400 surface-to-air missiles from Moscow. For months now, the Saudis have been objecting heatedly to the deal, with Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman—and King Salman himself—recently asking French President Macron to intervene in the matter. They even threatened to take military action against Qatar on the grounds that if their neighbor installed the air defense system, it would put the Kingdom’s security interests at risk.

This now-sweltering episode originated in October 2017. It followed a visit to Doha by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu that was aimed at bolstering ties between the two countries and, from the American-Saudi perspective, giving Moscow a significant foothold in the Gulf. However, whether the deal is ultimately consummated or not, it is a clear eye-opener as to Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim’s mindset of not sitting still while awaiting others to take action on his country’s behalf. When its back was shoved against the wall, Qatar chose to fight back, and although the final chapter has yet to be written, the tiny state seems to be holding its own, and then some.






Whether you’re a Trumpie, reveling in how President Trump keeps his promises, or a Never-Trumper, horrified at how he revels in dispensing chaos, you can’t but gawk at how he managed to reinvent himself over the past few weeks. In a frenzied sequence involving much “pulling”, he pulled the rug from under the three M’s (May, Macron, and Merkel), pulled the plug on the Iran nuclear deal, pulled the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and, with a bit of luck, might even pull off an implausible deal with the North Koreans. What he is apt to do next is, as usual, one of those things no betting man would want to wager on.

By enlisting Mike Pompeo as new Secretary of State, and John Bolton as new National Security Adviser, Trump has now bolstered his status as head of the most pugnacious three-headed behemoth of the post-Soviet Union era. With a scorching predilection for busting any status quo established by his predecessors—President Obama being the one who especially inflames his prickliness—the question is, what now for the landscape in the Middle East?

To affirm that Israel and the Saudis exulted when President Trump derailed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) would be a gross understatement. The beam on Netanyahu’s face was as wide as the Gaza strip, and the Saudis must have also fizzed with delight. The question nevertheless arose in regard to what Plan B there might be for Iran. Well, several observations can be factored in for a Plan B.

For a start, in the process of doing away with the nuclear deal, no one could have ignored the stern menace on Trump’s face. He spoke forcefully into the cameras and more than once warned Iran against reinstituting any new nuclear aspirations, threatening them with something akin to the B-2 bombers and other naval armadas he sent to the Korean peninsula at a time, only a few months back, when he was attempting to intimidate Kim Jong-un. It seems to have worked then, so why not with the Ayatollahs?

In addition, it took what seemed only seconds after Trump withdrew from the JCPOA that the Israelis sent fighter jets and bombers on dozens of anti-Iran missions in Syria. That must have set Iran back a notch or two and cost them a few pennies—with the unmistakable promise of much more to come.

Following the decimation of Iranian assets inside of Syria, another shoe dropped, this one barely noticeable. In siding decidedly with the Israelis, and assembling a mouthful of complaints against the Iranians, a US spokesperson stating that Iran had even put at risk American lives in the middle of—of all places—Riyadh. This concern, barefaced as it might seem, nevertheless was in reference to a couple of missiles that Iran-backed Houthi combatants had launched in the general direction of Riyadh.

What is at any rate in plain sight—and has been an essential ingredient of why Trump withdrew from the ill-fated, Obama-inspired, “worst deal in the history of mankind”—is the new “axis” between Trump, Israel, and Crown Prince Mohamad. All three are biting at the chomp to deal Iran additional punishment, come rain or sunshine.

As for France, Germany, and the UK, following the kissy-kissy love-fest between Macron and Trump, and having endured the embarrassment that followed Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA, they now face the prospect of the US’s perpetual ratcheting up of sanctions against Iran. The “E3” are thus in the tough spot of having to choose between dealing with Iran and dealing with the US, with prospects of reviving a deal with Iran at best improbable.

At another yet parallel level, the new coalition of “friendly” Arab nations have exhibited nowhere near the same fervor as in the past towards Palestinian issues. Left with little incentive to come to any negotiating table, the Palestinians could well revert to more extremist relationships and behaviors. The only odd thing is that they have not yet embraced the Ayatollahs as benefactors, the Sunni-Shiite divide perhaps still proving stronger than their current predicament.

Finally, to confront the hugely confrontational US/Israeli/Saudi tripartite, the Middle East mosaic seems to be moving towards yet another axis, that involving Russia, Iran, and Turkey, with a prognosis advocating simply that there will be no shortage of action in that part of the world.



Anyone who’s spent time in an Arab country can relate to how conspiracy theories abound in that part of the world. In the past, Israel would invariably top the list of suspects every time the Palestinians got the short end of an event. In more recent times however, it’s Iran that has usurped that distinction, with Israel promptly construed to be behind any machination that negatively impacts Iran or its regional cohorts.

Today, Israel is busier than ever fighting off Iranian encroachments in Syria. It is also seen working zealously to confine the roles of Iran-backed Hezbollah and Hamas in Lebanon and Gaza respectively.

As for the US, President Trump’s choice of Saudi Arabia for his first stop on a maiden trip in May of 2017 had implications beyond the pomp and deference he was greeted with. With regard to Qatar though, it is reasonable to assume that when Trump lectured the congregation of some fifty Moslem leaders to put a stop to Arab financial aid going to Jihadists, Qatar’s isolation and blockade had already been baked into the cake.

Another piece of the puzzle is currently playing out. By May 12, President Trump will have to decide on whether to pull the plug on the nuclear agreement with Iran. With French President Macron currently on a state visit to the US, and with France and other European allies steeply engaged in selling tons of sophisticated products to Iran, the smart money is on Macron talking Trump into leaving the deal with Iran more or less intact.

On first blush, it would therefore seem that both the US and Israel at first went along schemes to isolate Qatar, their main objectives perhaps consisting of placating the Saudis and driving a wedge between one of the richest nations in the world and Iran.

Signs have emerged though that Qatar may of late have played its cards effectively, including a concerted public relations blitz that has boosted its standing, starting with the US. 

Qatar’s initial set of arguments had it that the Saudis and Emiratis always wanted to punish it because of its independence, the relative emancipation of its citizens, and its popular stance against tyrannical rule. Furthermore, Qatar claimed that free-wheeling Al-Jazeera, their prime news agency, is the precise symbol that Qatar’s neighbors fear the most. They assert that everything else, including Iran’s participation in their critical gas and oil industry, is nothing but a smokescreen that can easily be resolved, given good faith all around.

Nevertheless, that good faith has yet to emerge. In fact, the sniping and hurling of ugly propagandist claims, particularly between Qatar and its prime detractor in the United Arab Emirates, seem to continue on a cresting trajectory, thrown about copiously and with hardly any consideration for mediation.

Qatar’s PR campaign, unprecedented among Arab nations in both depth and sophistication, is giving reason to believe that Qatar has indeed turned the corner and is winning the diplomatic war with its feuding counterparts. Noteworthy in that regard is the US’s latest posture which, while calling for compromise, emphasizes strong support for Qatar.

It started with strategic talks during visits to the US by the Qatari Emir himself, Sheikh Tamim Ben Hamad Al Thani, and a plethora of visits by other prominent members of the Al Thani family, as well as cabinet ministers, and Qatari figures with significant links to industrial and aviation interests.

To cite a few examples, Qatar first reminded the US media of the importance of the ten thousand-strong Al-Udeid Air Base the US maintains in the near the Qatari capital of Doha. They tout that base as the “refueling station” for planes going to all of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, the latter as recently as a couple of weeks ago when the US and allied planes bombed chemical facilities there.

In a profusion of other bold moves, Qatar pledged investments in the US economy to the tune of $100bn, $10bn of which towards infrastructure projects dear to President Trump’s heart, and the doubling of Qatar’s participation in the Qatar-US Economic Forum’s $125bn partnership. In addition, Qatar’s all-out rallying of public opinion included military partnership with individual states in the US, and large missile deals with the Pentagon. There was additionally an impactful and repetitive Qatari outcry soliciting goodwill from Kuwait, Bahrain, Turkey, and other European players with influence in the Middle East.

There are thus signs, clearer by the day, that underscore Qatar’s effective campaign to rehabilitate itself as a valuable member of the of the fraternity of Gulf states. What is left now is for a few multinational players to line up behind current Kuwaiti efforts to keep the dispute on the forefront of negotiations for a resolution of the conflict that many claim has already caused more regional disruption than was ever called for.




British diplomat Martin Griffiths, the new UN Special Envoy for Yemen, carries a stack of mediation qualifications so deep that he is viewed as the best—and perhaps last—chance for a quick and sustainable resolution to the civil strife in Yemen.

However, what Mr. Griffiths has bought into is no ordinary conflict. The urgency of this UN effort derives from the failure of prior missions to bring an end to the thousand days of deadly factional fighting that has killed more than 10,000 people, maimed tens of thousands, displaced another two million, ignited a massive outbreak of cholera, and led to a still-surging hunger crisis—all of which being dubbed the worst man-made humanitarian disaster in modern history.

In addition, fuel was thrown over the flames recently when some faction, presumably the Houthis, shot ballistic missiles, presumably Iranian-made, at targets in Riyadh, presumably one or more royal palaces. The cynical viewpoint would thus have it that as a result, the Yemen that today greets Mr. Griffiths is being held together with duct tape.

What might nonetheless be helpful to the new envoy is the simmering public relations quandary that mostly Saudi Arabia—but also the U.S.—finds itself in. Detractors blame the Saudi air force for having dropped ton after ton of destruction from the air, as well as for the naval blockade that conjured massive “food insecurity”, a UN euphemism for spiraling food scarcity and food prices that people can hardly afford. The Yemeni riyal for example lost 50% of its value over only the last 12 months.

As for the U.S., congress there is getting restless with regards to America’s considerable role in the air campaign, providing critical midair refueling for Saudi and Emirati warplanes and, together with the UK and France—and perhaps Israel as well—assisting with intelligence and bomb targeting logistics. One might therefore infer that the pressure from across public opinion in the West could perhaps render Mr. Griffith’s task a little easier, if only because the Saudi-led coalition might be ready to relent, at least for the duration of Griffiths-led peace talks.

There are other conflicting paradigms that abound in that poorest of Arab nations, for what started in early 2015 as a falling-out between two well-defined nemeses has metastasized into a plethora of armed-to-the-teeth splinter groups—each with its own fledgling agenda.

To cite just the one example, one of the conflagrations involves the U.S.’s independent air strikes against Jihadist militants from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). These have evolved into al-Qaeda’s leftover yet best organized Jihadists in the world, operating brazenly out of Yemen’s forbidding terrain in the east, and conducting regular and brutal strikes against civilians and government forces in the south. Why is that prickly? Because U.S. ally Saudi Arabia is counting on those same Jihadists—and some say providing them with arms—to counter the separatist movement in Aden and other parts of the south which, by the way, happens to be supported by the United Arab Emirates, staunchest ally of the Saudis.

This is further exacerbated by a critical enmity that developed over the past few months between President Hadi and the UAE, forcing the Saudis to keep Hadi and his sons and key ministers under house arrest in Riyadh.

One likely outcome might thus involve this increasingly important separatist faction. Known as the Southern Transitional Council, their fighters, including remnants of ex-President Saleh loyalists, recently exchanged fierce shelling and shooting with government forces, proving they’re there to be reckoned with, and likely earning them a meaningful say in a prospective unification government.

In another predicable outcome, Iran and their Hezbollah cohorts may be amenable to pressuring the Houthis into enabling the resumption of peaceful distribution of food and other badly needed necessities throughout areas they control. This would doubtless be negotiated against another considerable representation in such a new government, much like Hezbollah parliamentarians did in Lebanon.

The first task that Mr. Griffiths faces however would have to consist of bringing about a ceasefire that can hold. As long as the cross-country duels remain the order of the day, and ballistic missiles keep getting hurled at Saudi territory, nothing else can be achieved.

Next would have to be getting the Saudi-led coalition to lift its air, land and naval blockade, and get all the major factions around a conference table, with the promise of getting UN troops to maintain the peace, and of securing Arab money and foreign aid for the rebuilding of Yemen.

Of course, none of that is in stock and ready for the taking. Instead, the new UN envoy for Yemen will have to tweak his notable credentials and incite a little peacemaking magic.



As the first signs of spring 2018 dawn upon the nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), it has become all the more reckless to hypothesize as to how the different pieces of the region’s political mosaic will settle. The only responsible take-aways that can be coerced out of this tumultuous first quarter of the year are that peace between Palestinians and Israelis is on ice, while the divide between Sunnis and Shiites is on fire. One or two recent developments are nevertheless noteworthy:

For a start, there is reason to believe that the fervor that ordinary people on the streets of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi had in times past for the Palestinian cause has waned. Had an American administration decreed to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem only twenty or so years ago, all hell would have broken loose, seriously rocking the boat for some of the region’s regimes. Instead, when President Trump recently made precisely that kind of pronouncement, the burning of tires and effigies on the boulevards was, if anything, muted. Instead, what did in fact emerge was the further cementing of a hitherto forbidden triangular relationship between Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel, with Bahrain tagging along its critical Saudi benefactors.

Perhaps to button things up, Israel then chose to follow up by retaliating en masse to, of all things, an Iranian drone that may or may not have pierced its air space. By sending fighter jets to exert a heavy toll on Iranian and Syrian assets inside of Syria, and at the conceivably negligible cost of one of their aircraft, Israel in effect further consolidated its ebbing entente with the Saudis and Emiratis.

That sort of diplomatic and military maneuvering naturally doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The new coalition has Israel relieving the U.S. from having to defend its main Sunni clients from Iranian-backed Shiite hegemony. Did we not hear President Trump repeatedly berate past U.S. administrations for having spent “$7 trillion” on the Middle East? And doesn’t Israel benefit handsomely from opening up Arab markets with tens of millions of new and financially robust consumers? As for the Saudis and Emiratis, they are if anything more comfortable with the ever-ready Israelis having their back than with the invariably unreliable United States. Furthermore, to top it all, Trump’s “America First” and “jobs, jobs, jobs” paradigms get a boost as well, with billions of dollars’ worth of U.S. weaponry supplied annually to all three nations.

And yet, in a part of the world where the discernable is always fickle, and the improbable likely, it is foolhardy, at a time when most anything can derail pacts stronger than that in the Middle East, to proclaim that the die is cast for that alliance. For example, while the Israeli-backed coalition has air dominance, Iran can wield meaningful influence on the ground with its revolutionary guard corps in Iraq and Syria, and its Hezbollah, Hamas, and Houthi proxy brigades in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen—plus the thousands of artillery rounds and missiles that can reach every part of the region. The Fighting in Yemen as well, to cite another example, seems to be a toss-up as to which of the two sides will bear the brunt of the responsibility for the killed and maimed, and genocidal famine, that the country is experiencing.

As for Saudi Arabia’s current prospects for peace and prosperity, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman could surely use a few more years of consolidation to have the Kingdom’s youth witness in real time some of the benefits of his ambitious 2030 vision and anti-corruption campaign. In the interim, these moves, and the regime’s attempts at breathing a little fresh air into women’s emancipation and other cultural and political freedoms, may have to endure a little more understandable skepticism.


Economy, Geopolitics

On December 5, 2017, Kuwait Emir Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani announced the abrupt ending of the 38th Annual Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Summit on its first day.  According to the Emir, the GCC was considering ways to modify the GCC’s statute to allow for more effective dispute resolution. “Any dispute on the Gulf level must not affect the continuation of the summit.”   This was the first meeting of the GCC since the Arab world’s crisis with Qatar began in June 2017. The diplomatic rift began when several Arab countries (including Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) cut their relationships with Qatar due to their belief that the Qatari government funded terrorism and has close ties to Iran. The crisis has persisted and still remains a difficult thorn in the side of the decades-old GCC. Holding this summit was an indicator for the world that the situation could be resolved and the GCC could remain, as noted by Emir Al Sabah.  But while there had been high hopes that holding the annual meeting may actually bring parties together to address concerns, the fact that only two heads of state (the Emirs of Qatar and Kuwait) attended indicated the rest of the Gulf was not ready to talk. The sudden conclusion of the summit is not a high indicator for success.

The Gulf Cooperation Council has been seen as a success since its inception in 1981. It provided a coordinating platform for the burgeoning oil-producing Arab Gulf countries and a solitary unit to counter the influence of Iran in the wake of the Iranian Revolution. The cultural and historical ties between the six-member states–Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates–is the foundation by which the large, coherent entity was formed. “It is also a fulfilment of the aspirations of its citizens towards some sort of Arab regional unity.”   The GCC has worked to align its economic, social, technological, and military efforts for the mutual benefits of each member state.

One aspect of the GCC that is not well-developed, however, is its dispute resolution mechanism. During the 2017 annual summit, Kuwait Emir Sheikh Al-Sabah noted that a task force may be set up to deal with the crisis between the GCC and Qatar, but the GCC already has such mechanisms to handle these problems. In fact, this is not the first rift among Qatar and the GCC. Kuwait mediated this issue in 2014 when similar concerns over Qatar’s foreign policy emerged and Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE cut diplomatic ties.

The primary concern, of course, for the member states is survival of this unifying platform. “The last thing we need is for the GCC, the most perfect body in the Arab world, to catch the flu or catch the disease of Arab fragmentation and splintering,” says Abdullah Al Shayji, Professor of Political Science at Kuwait University. Various divisive issues have risen particularly since the Arab Spring protests in 2011 and the current U.S. administration’s approach to unifying the Sunni Arab world against the Shi’a Iranian threat leads to an additional pressure among GCC members. Part of this is being fueled by the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed Bin Salman. The young prince’s ambitious modernization efforts have been rapid as of late and media reports indicate he was behind the UAE’s recent announcement of a new coordination effort with Saudi Arabia. “According to the Resolution, the Committee is assigned to cooperate and coordinate between the UAE and Saudi Arabia in all military, political, economic, trade and cultural fields, as well as others, in the interest of the two countries.”  There are concerns that such a step indicates the beginning of the end of the GCC in its current composition and unity may be no more.

Convening the GCC member states did indeed illustrate that the cooperation body still holds meaning for the Gulf, but the inability to resolve the crisis with Qatar may lead to additional long-term problems. The new Emirati-Saudi cooperation agreement could just be first of many launched among the member states to maneuver around the Qataris, but the fact remains that the blockade is costing all members billions of dollars in lost revenue. A break among the Gulf states could also mean a weaker Sunni front to the perceived encroachment Iranian influence in the region as the Syrian and Yemeni civil wars rage on. We may very well see rapid reform instituted in the GCC to deal with the diplomatic crisis, but it is unlikely to be successful as long as the Sunni Arab states demand foreign policy changes that the government of Qatar believes puts them in a difficult position.