Middle East

A hideous story from the troubled border of Yemen and Saudi Arabia.  I’ll quote a few passages. 

Saudi policemen burned 18 Yemenis while they were trying to cross into Khamis Bani Mushait, a Saudi village bordering Yemen. Alsahwa opposition newspaper reported on Saturday that the police poured diesel onto the men, who were hiding in a hole in the area to escape the police.
…

The 18 burnt men were transferred to a police station. They said police interrogated them while they shouted in pain. “They questioned us quietly and with indifferent temperament,” Salloum said.

After nine days in the hospital, the 18 burn victims were taken back to the police station and the officer offered them two choices; either to go back to Yemen and write waivers and confessions that the Saudi police weren’t responsible for what happened to them or to stay in Saudi Arabia till they died.

It is difficult to tell what is the greatest horror in the story- the obscene cruelty or the wanton indifference; the lack of any human compassion or the clinical and legalistic way in which punishment and cover-up was inflicted.   This is the kind of story that leaves one with a shudder of terror and a quick desire to forget. 

But this is not a philosophical blog, nor is it a forum to peer into the dark crevasses of man’s soul (for which we can all breathe a sigh of relief).  There are reasons why such a scenario happened, and will continue to happen, if hopefully not to the dark extreme as above.

Why were the men there?  As the Yemen Times said, the “illegal immigrants were trying to get jobs in the Saudi bordering cities”. 

Ah! So simple, so obvious, and yet such a depth of history and desire and humanity and the peculiar idiosyncrasies of the region. 

The Los Angeles Timeshas an excellent blog on the Middle East, Babylon and Beyond, and I am not just saying that because they have added this to their blogroll.  I am reasonably sure the Times will do fine without my endorsement.   I am linking it because of an interesting article on the death of Hezbollah strategist Imad Mughnieh, as framed by Iran.

 Some Iranian newspapers, close to both President Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameni are fingering Saudi Arabia in Mugnieh’s explosive death.  From the Times:

The source quoted in the report told Fars (Editor’s Note: Fars is an Iranian newspaper)that the Syrians had discovered a network connected to Israeli intelligence and Saudi Arabian Prince Bandar bin Sultan as well as a Saudi intelligence official in Damascus as partly behind the death. The source alleged that the Syrians had already arrested a Saudi official and were about to release their long-delayed report about the killing implicating the Saudis but were swayed by Kuwait to hold off.

Both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait urged their citizens to leave Lebanon after Mughniyah’s slaying.

Here are other allegations in the report:

• Israeli intelligence officials monitored Mughniyah’s comings and goings for a year before the assassination.
• Conspirators included Jordanians, Syrians and Palestinians who, along with their families, had rented or bought housing near Mughniyah’s residence in the Kafar Sosa district of Damascus.
• The Saudi official overseeing the operation fled home after the assassination but was lured back by a woman with whom he was having an affair.

So.  This, then, seems to involve Saudis, Syrians, Palestinians, Israelis (of course), Kuwaitis and adultery.  I think it stands to reason that the scheme was cooked up by a lazy studio-head. 

Who knows if any of this is true?  I am sure there are some elements of truth in there- Mugnieh’s death wasn’t a spontaneous action.  But the more important point is that, despite talk of an Iranian/Saudi rapprochement, there is still tension and difficulties in the region, handshakes and professions of friendship aside.

 If the report is true, and I doubt it, then Saudi Arabia killed one of Iran’s men in Hezbollah-run, Iran-backed Beirut, never a sign of brotherly affection.   If it is false, then for some reason Iran feels the need to discredit Saudi Arabia.  The reason is most likely connected to their struggle for regional dominance- both want to be seen as the true leaders of the Middle East’s true believers.  So there will continue to be these inter-locking conspiracies, wherein the hint of conspiracy is just as powerful a tool as action.

The New Republic has an essayby Zvika Kreiger about the construction boom in Mecca, including a luxury hotel right across from the Kaaba.   This is controversial, largely because hundreds of holy sites are being destroyed. 

Over protests by groups like the Islamic Supreme Council of America and the Muslim Canadian Congress, Saudi authorities have authorized the destruction of hundreds of antiquities, such as an important eighteenth-century Ottoman fortress in Mecca that was razed to make way for the Abraj Al Bait Towers– a move the Turkish foreign minister condemned as “cultural genocide.” An ancient house belonging to Mohammed was recently razed to make room for, among other developments, a public toilet facility. An ancient mosque belonging to Abu Bakr has now been replaced by an ATM machine. And the sites of Mohammed’s historic battles at Uhud and Badr have been, with a perhaps unconscious nod to Joni Mitchell, paved to put up a parking lot. The remaining historical religious sites in Mecca can be counted on one hand and will likely not make it much past the next hajj, Angawi says: “It is incredible how little respect is paid to the house of God.”

Kreiger talks about how replacing the sacred with the profane is being supported full-throatedly by the Wahaabi clerical establishment.   Normal Saud/Wahaab political connections could come into play, but the more interesting reason- or co-reason- is that Wahaabism believes that anything that isn’t actually Allah is not worthy of veneration, as it becomes polytheism.   So taking these things out actually increases religious devotion, as you are no longer distracted.    It’s nice, in a way, that the construction modern hotels and luxury shops in Islam’s most sacred city isbeing defended by atavistic clerics.    It helps illustrate the eternal and torturous contradictions of both religion and politics. 

If you want to read a decent novel about the Kabaa, about Mecca and Jerusalem, I would recommend The Rock by Kanan Makiya.   Gets into the history, myth and legend of early Islam, and paints a fascinating picture of Jerusalem in the 7th-century.   If you don’t want to read a novel about that…I don’t know- Joyce?  Up to you, I guess.

Saturated as we are with news, it is easy to forget that Lebanon is still without a President, suffering under internal strife and external meddling over what the makeup of the next government should look like.  When this started in November it was scary.  It became frustrating as time went on, and now just seems absurd.   Unfortunately, however, absurdity is not the opposite of tragedy; more often that not it is merely a mask. 

 That seems to be the case in Lebanon.   The head of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, has left Beirut empty-handed, failing to bring a deal to the table.   All sides agree that Michel Suleiman should be the next President, but all are getting hung up on the make-up of the next cabinet.   The Party of God wants enough cabinet members to maintain veto power over major decisions, a decision that is supported by its main patron, Syria (and a decision undoubtedly supported by the patron of both Syria andHezbollah: Iran).   The other parties don’t want the Shi’ite group to have that kind of power, seeing it as little but a recidivist and violent proxy for Syrian domination and Iranian influence. 

This, of course, is Lebanon’s main problem: it is the constant testing ground for regional rivalries.   The next stop for this is the upcoming Arab Summit in Damascus, which has received boycott threats from the Saudis.  Sana Abdallah discusses this in a sharp Middle East Times article. 

 If there is a boycott, it will both cause and be caused by tension.  It is worth noting that serious boycotts have taken place during major events, such as the Egyptian peace treaty with Israel or the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.  The threat of this shows how seriously Saudi Arabia is concerned with Iran, NIE notwithstanding.

(Of course, the seriousness of a boycott is somewhat leavened by the cold hard fact that nothing ever happens at Arab Summits.   It isn’t as if the Sauds will miss anything important or their absence will change anything, practically.  But that isn’t the point. Again: farce)

It is difficult to see a way out of this labyrinth.  To me, this is largely due to the intransigence of Hezbollah.  There has been talk for years about Hezbollah modifying themselves when they achieve political power, but that hasn’t been the case.  The problem with them is what they do without power- fall back into their old ways, threatening the Lebanese society (actually, this should be its own post, and hopefully will be tomorrow).  

But it isn’t just Hezbollah being difficult.   Read this Marc Sioris article from the Daily Star which quickly and insightfully demonstrates the political system’s internal rot.

In Lebanon, the only check on such families is the presence of other families competing for the same privileges. Take away that internal balance of power, and one of their scions might dominate the whole scene faster than one can say Bob Mugabe. Even those parties not built on inherited authority have adopted the same reverence for cults of personality and other tribal rituals, simultaneously making them greater threats to dilute the power of existing cliques but also diminishing the likelihood that they would bring substantive change.

Today brought the shocking and completely unexpected news that Vladimir Putin has agreed to become the Prime Minister of Russia when his term ends next year.  That isn’t the only news to come out of Russia today- though I know the reader may want to take a few seconds to recover from that twist- and much of the news involves topics on this blog.   Russia today also helped solidify its ties with Iran, completing its first fuel delivery to Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant.   The Times  reports that it is “unclear when the controversial station would begin operating.”  But Iran News Daily previously reported “According to Russian forecasts, the first reactor at the Bushehr plant could be started up in 2008 and nuclear fuel would have to be shipped to Bushehr six months ahead of time.”   So, with that timetable, Bushehr can be online by June.

The Times also reports that Putin has helped open a pipeline for Russian Muslims to make it to Mecca for the hajj- a huge turnaround from the Soviet days, when only 18 pilgrims a year were granted visas.   As Russia tries to expand its influence, it would like to be a broker in the Middle East, establishing ties with both Iran and Saudi Arabia.   Though the war in Chechnya has left Putin considered an enemy, he has recently made a lot of moves to restore relations with Muslims in Russia.   Here is a transcript of a November meeting between Putin and Muslim leaders in Russia.   Most of it is boilerplate speeches, but the point is Putin is at least making gestures.   He thanks them for “your important contribution to the moral education of our citizens, for your actions in the fight against all forms of extreme currents of thought, and for what you do in the fight against extremism. This certainly strengthens the unity of Russian society.”     There are of course internal Russian reasons for reaching out to its restive Muslim population, but it would also be difficult to expand relations with powerful countries in the Middle East if the Muslims in his control were all revolting.

For the first time since the revolution of 1979, a sitting Iranian President has been invited to participate in the hajj.  King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia has extended an invitation to the head of his regional rival, a gesture one could think is the triumph of religion over politics, but, in reality, is just the opposite.

Saudi Arabia has long worried about Iran’s Shi’ite revolution,  especially in light of an oil-rich Iran taking advantage of a weakened America to spread its regional influence.   So worried, in fact, that the House of Saud agreed to fund Sunni militants in Lebanon and Palestine to fight against their Iran-backed Shi’ite rivals.   This was chronicled by Seymour Hersh in a March New Yorker article.

But, it seems the National Intelligence Estimate has changed everything, or at least the perception of everything.   The ides that Iran is no longer actively engaged in the pursuit of nuclear weapons has given some breathing room to monarchs worried about regional confrontation.   It is hard to imagine Abdallah extending this invitation without the estimate.   This is not to say that the Gulf Arab states are no longer terrified of Iran.  Max Boot, just returning from a trip to the Gulf Region, reports that “some of those most worried about the mullahs wear flowing headdresses, not yarmulkes, and they have good cause for concern, notwithstanding the sanguine tilt many news accounts put on the NIE.”

So, then: what?  If Saudi Arabia is still scared of Iran, and whose oil dollars are still the biggest obstacle to Iran’s plans for regional dominance, why are they breaking bread together?  Because Middle Eastern politics are not as straightforward as one would like: enemies can work together for another goal.  The Middle Eastern Times reported that “Lebanese analysts expect that Ahmadinejad’s Hajj pilgrimage this month will help the anti- and pro-Western politicians in Lebanon to come closer to electing a president and to formulate an agenda and lineup for a new cabinet”.  This confused me.  Saudi Arabia is still the biggest regional financial backer of  Saad Hariri’s Future Party, and Iran is the sponsor of his two biggest foes, Syria and Hezbollah.   But the wild card is the al-Qaeda aligned militant groups in the Palestinian camps, notably Fatah al-Islam.

Iran and Saudi Arabia have goals in Lebanon (and the region) that oppose each other.   But in the chaotic and dangerous politics of Lebanon, the old cliche of your enemy’s enemy being your friend holds true.  Neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia want to see a revival of the Lebanese Civil War with al-Qaeda in the mix, a group over whom neither of them can wield much control.    So it seems they are willing to work together to put Michel Sulieman (or another acceptable candidate) in the President’s office.   It may be true that Syria is still somewhere behind the assassination of Francois al-Hajj, but Iran and Hajji Ahmadinejad seem willing to rein in their weaker, still aggressive client.

This is, of course, speculation.  But when investigating Middle Eastern politics, one has to keep in mind the criss-crossing connections.

A short, brighter note on Iran: when we think of Iran we tend to think of mullahs and maybe some brave student groups.  But it is good to remember that Iran and its expat community are engaged in a vibrant debate.   I came across this site, Gozaar, dedicated to Iranian human rights.  Haven’t gone through it all, but found a fascinating article on “positive nationalism” (like in Robert Reich’s formulation, for example).   The author wants to “preserve positive nationalism as a moderate force and to incorporate democratic and secular values into it.”  It is an interesting look at Iranian identity, and, as in-depth as it is, seems almost relieving to trying to figure out the bizarre political machinations of current politics.