Saudi global Salafi-Jihadi project (variously known as Al Qaeda, Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood, Jamaat-e-Islami, Sipah-e-Sahaba etc) which is amply supported by Pakistan army, ISI in particular, has seemed to once
It does not matter if one was Baloch and the other is an Arab. They both represent the violent face of wahabi sunni Islam. The Baloch must be extremely careful and do not look upon Jondullah as a lesser evil simply because it is comprised of Balochi-speaking sunni wahabis, warns intellectual and poet Dr. Malek Towghi of East Lansing, Michigan.
Enduring Allies: Pakistan’s Partnership with Saudi Arabia Runs Deeper
9 December 2011
When Crown Prince Sultan of Saudi Arabia died this fall, the first foreign head of state to announce he would attend the funeral was President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan. Accompanying him was the chief of army staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the real power in the country.
All Sunnis and Shias must read Luttwak’s article in order to understand how Saudi-Ikhwan-Wahhabi lobby in USA wants to create a fresh wave of anti-Shia violence in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and other parts of the Muslim world.
To understand the Saudi-Wahhabi-Ikhwan influence on US lobbyists/strategic analysts, read Edward Luttwak’s anti-Shia hate article in Foreign Policy. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/12/07/revenge_of_the_sunnis
Luttwak’s piece is equally offensive to moderate Sunnis and Shias.
Misrepresentations in Lutwak’s FP article
Hajj is a great opportunity for freedom of expression and a great opportunity to breathe freedom in the holiest Muslim place in the world. But then freedom is anathema to the House of Saud
According to AFP and SPA news agencies, Saudi Crown Prince Nayef bin Abdel Aziz has hailed the ‘success’ of this year’s hajj “despite the risk of chaos feared in the wake of the Arab Spring”. He especially referred to “some pilgrims” (read Iranian/Shia), who he said had planned to “exploit the international and regional changes taking place to cause chaos”.
This is in reference to “Kill the sectarian killers: Will Pakistan follow the Iranian example?” published by a fellow editor, Sarah Khan, on December 20, 2010. In her post, Sarah was giving the example of how Iran executed 11 members of Jundullah in response to the horrific suicide bombing that killed 39 Shia mourners and wounded another 100 in Chabahar, Iran.
While I am completely opposed to the State sponsored militias that have killed thousands of Pakistanis, I don’t think we should be following the Iranian example in this particular instance. That being said, Sarah Khan is spot on in her assessment:
“the ISI is known for its support to jihadi-sectarian groups and the judiciary remains infested with the pro-Jamaat-e-Islami (pro-Taliban) judges.”
While our media is infested with jihadi sympathizers like Hamid Mir, Shahid Masood, Ansar Abbasi, Javed Chaudhry etc and our judiciary is increasingly being viewed as a B-Team for the jihadis, Iran has a pathetic human rights record for its treatment of all those who are against the hardliners and the theocrats whose victims include women, minorities, Bahais, Baluchis, Kurds, secular Shias (the vast majority of the population) and all the senior Ayatullahs who do not agree with the theocratic construct of Vilayat-e-Faqih.
In this regard, the Balochs and Kurds are persecuted in Iran on the basis of ethnicity and not sect and those who were executed in Chabahar were arrested before the horrible and equally condemnable suicide bombing of Shias. The sequence of events that is being played out in Iran and Pakistan with regard to the Baloch is a dirty game that seeks to delegitimize the nationalist aspirations of the Baloch.
Since the annexation and division of the former State of Qalat by Pakistan and Iran, the Balochs have maintained their genuine nationalist concerns that range from provincial autonomy and a dignified existence to full independence from both countries.
In Pakistan, they have faced several military actions and the last one is still ongoing even if it does not have the attention of our chic urban types. Of course, we all know how the judiciary has backtracked on the issue of missing persons that include thousands of illegally detained Baloch youth along with a dozen or less shadowy Islamist types; the latter 2-3 like Aafia Siddiqi and Masood Janjua are the only ones that matter to the consciousness of our Jamaat-e-Islami influenced urban types.
In order to delegitimize the Baloch struggle, our establishment has, in typical fashion, added a toxic blend of sectarian fanaticism to the mix. It has continued the laboratory experiment that it started in District Jhang and used the same formula to create the Jundullah: a Wahabi/Deobandi militia comprised of a few brainwashed Baloch youth. This allows the establishment to kill two birds with one stone. On the one hand, the Jundullah have been indoctrinated with a virulent anti-Shia ideology that makes them the perfect foot soldiers to kill Shias in Pakistan and Iran. Furthermore, their fanatical acts of violence also damage the Baloch nationalist struggle.
The Baloch struggle is secular in nature and rooted in a rich and diverse cultural tradition. Until the Saudi-financed and establishment facilitated radicalization of some Baloch children, the Zikri (a mystical Sufi sect) school of thought formed the cornerstone of Baloch religious sentiment. The radicalization and subsequent acts of senseless violence by Jundullah allows the establishment to malign and de-legitimize the largely nationalist Baloch struggle. This is a tactic that is similar to the one used to drown out the moderate and nationalist sentiment in Kashmir and replace it with sectarian Jihadis from Punjab.
In prosecuting our jihadi sectarian murderers, we should never be emulating Iran. In this regard, the aims of those who want a just and peaceful society are up against an Islamofascist judiciary that clearly has the interests of jihadis like Hafiz Saeed, Mullah Abdul Aziz, Masood Azhar and sectarian murderers like Malik Ishaq of Sipah-e-Sahaba and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi. That this judiciary is entrenched and dictating its regressive agenda to elected representatives of Pakistan should be a lesson to those who supported the movement to restore compromised and shadowy bureaucrats; those who have a solid tradition of backing military coups and committing judicial murder.
While the Taliban have been given a free hand to slaughter Pushtuns, Shias, Ahmadis and Barelvis and while their affiliates such as Jamaat-e-Islami and Sipah-e-Sahaba are allowed to lynch Christains, our “educated” bourgeoisie and elites are continuing to live in denial and the la-la land of conspiracy theory. They lack the moral and intellectual clarity to admit that an increasing number of fellow Muslims (extremist Deobandis and Wahhabis) are committing violence on Pakistan’s diverse ethnic, sectarian and religious minority groups. They have a tendency to continually blame Jews, Hindus and Blackwater, even as the various jihadi groups proudly own up to the latest act of terrorism. In this they are abetted by a media that mostly takes its cues from the establishment and therefore completely dishonest.
We need no cues from Iran or Saudi Arabia to bring murderers to justice. What we need is support for democracy and the will to protest and call out the proxies of the establishment which are the judiciary and the media – the Teen Jeem coalition!
Source: Justice Denied
When the head is rotten it affects the whole body. We must kill the snake. We must crush the head. The Ummah is surrounded on all sides by enemies of the faith who are conspiring day and night to bring infamy and disorder into our ranks. We must stand united to thwart all these efforts.
Those infernal Persians have no right to speak on behalf of the Ummah. They are a blot on the name of the Faith. They are inciting treason and hatred in the Eastern Province. We pray to the Almighty to quell their mischief. We pray to the almighty US to extinguish the evil of Bushehr with the help of the blessed Stealth™ technology and in collaboration with IDF. We pray to the almighty Centcom to protect the holy oil terminal of Ras Tannurah so that the holy pipe lines keep running and the blessed oil tankers ply through the Holy Strait.
The Ummah had a glorious history but it has seen ups and downs of history. One of the most painful moments was when giant portraits of Hasan Nasrullah were displayed in the streets of Cairo after the last Lebanon war. We pray to the Almighty God, to deliver the Ummah from these unbearable crises and allow the faithful to follow the pure and unsullied message as promoted by the Al Sheikh Abdul Wahab and as affirmed by the greatest human to walk on the desert sand, the founder of the House, the servant of God, King Abdul Aziz bin Saud.
The House has left no stone unturned to uplift the lot of its loyal subjects. We have spared no expense to strengthen the defences of the Kingdom. The gleaming squadrons of F15 aircraft are a testimony to our commitment. In matters of defence Prince Bandar is the primate. He has spent forty billion dollars of the holy fossil fuel income to reward the British Aerospace for the services rendered. A billion or two in his own pious pocket are of no consequence. God protect him from the lies and calumnies of the enemies of Islam and the petty pen pushers of the Serious Fraud Office. May God give the gift of health and happiness to the Duke of York and to Lord Blair of Kut al Ammara.
Zardari of course has brought the curse of corruption to the sister Islamic Republic. Even worse, he has brought the curse of democracy to the brothers of the Islamic Republic. When my brother in Islam, General Tinpot was in control, the Republic was free of these evils. Even now, I think Brother Field Marshal Kayani should do right thing and save the Republic in same way that it has been saved a number of times before by determined men acting in supreme national interest.
Issued with the seal of
His Supreme Royal Highness
King ABA Aziz
Servant to the twin Holy Cities (of Riyadh and Tel Aviv)
And with the seal of
December 7, 2010
Last Sunday, a December 2009 cable that was cited by the New York Times but has not yet been posted by Wikileaks says that Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups such as Al Qaeda.
America’s top financial-counterterrorism official, Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey, believes there’s a strong link between education and support for terror. As he wrote in the Washington Post last June, to end support for such terror, among other steps, “we must focus on educational reform in key locations to ensure that intolerance has no place in curricula and textbooks. . . . [U]nless the next generation of children is taught to reject violent extremism, we will forever be faced with the challenge of disrupting the next group of terrorist facilitators and supporters.”
Saudi Arabia is one such “key location.” The kingdom is not just any country with problematic textbooks. As the controlling authority of the two holiest shrines of Islam, Saudi Arabia is able to disseminate its religious materials among the millions of Muslims making the hajj to Mecca each year. Such teachings can, in this context, make a great impression. In addition, Saudi textbooks are also posted on the Saudi Education Ministry’s website and are shipped and distributed free by a vast Sunni infrastructure established with Saudi oil wealth to many Muslim schools, mosques and libraries throughout the world. In his book The Looming Tower, Lawrence Wright asserts that while Saudis constitute only 1 percent of the world’s Muslims, they pay “90 per cent of the expenses of the entire faith, overriding other traditions of Islam.” Others estimate that, on an annual basis, Saudi Arabia spends three times as much in exporting its Wahhabi ideology as did the Soviets in propagating Communism during the height of the Cold War. From the Netherlands and Bosnia, to Algeria and Tunisia, to Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to Somalia and Nigeria, nationals of these countries have reported that over the past twenty to thirty years local Islamic traditions are being transformed and radicalized under intensifying Saudi influence. The late President of Indonesia Abdurrahman Wahid wrote that Wahhabism was making inroads even in his famously tolerant nation of Indonesia.
To understand why Jim Woolsey and other terrorism experts call Wahhabism as it spreads through the Islamic diaspora “kindling for Usama Bin Laden’s match,” it is important to know the content of Saudi textbooks. They teach, along with many other noxious lessons, that Jews and Christians are “enemies,” and they dogmatically instruct that that it is permissible, even obligatory, to kill various groups of “unbelievers” — apostates (which includes Muslim moderates who reject Saudi Wahhabi doctrine), polytheists (which can include Shias and Sufis, as well as Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists.), Jews, and adulterers. The texts also teach that the “punishment for homosexuality is death” and discusses that this can be done by immolation by fire, stoning or throwing the accused from a high place.
Under the Saudi Education Ministry’s method of rote learning, these teachings amount to indoctrination, starting in first grade and continuing through high school, where militant jihad on behalf of “truth” has for years been taught as a sacred duty.
The “lesson goals” of one of the text books is to have the children list the “reprehensible” qualities of Jewish people and another, that Jews are pigs and apes.
Reformist Muslims can also be labeled as “apostates,” and thus they can be killed with impunity. In the opening fatwa of a Saudi government booklet distributed to educate Muslim immigrants in 2005 by the Saudi embassy in the United States, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia (a cabinet level government post) responded to a question about a Muslim preacher in a European mosque who said “declaring Jews and Christians infidels is not allowed.” The Grand Mufti accused the unnamed European cleric of apostasy: “He who casts doubts about their infidelity leaves no doubt about his own infidelity.”
As Saudi analyst Ali Ahmed recently wrote in the Guardian: “The current textbooks do not spare most Muslims from the accusations of polytheism, deviance, hypocrisy, and outright apostasy. For example, the 12th grade book on ‘monotheism’ claims that many in the Muslim world community have returned to polytheism. …In the classical Takfiri (declaring others to be outside of religion’s bounds) style, the text allows for the killing of apostates and polytheists, and it does not take much to qualify as one or the other.”
The intellectual pioneer of takfiri doctrine is the medieval Islamic scholar Ibn Tamiyya. He is cited as a moral guide in the Saudi textbooks – including in the newly edited, heavily redacted texts used in the Islamic Saudi Academy, a school operated in Fairfax County, VA, by the Saudi embassy. Students of Saudi high school textbooks are instructed to consult his writings when they face vexing moral questions. West Point’s Center for Combating Terror found that Ibn Tamiyya’s are “by far the most popular texts for modern jihadis.”
Saudi foreign-affairs officials and ambassadors do not dispute the need for education reform. Their reactions, though, have alternated over the years between insisting that reforms had already been made and stalling for time by stating that the reforms would take several years more to complete, maybe banking on the hope that American attention would drift.
Four years ago, the Saudis gave a solemn and specific promise to the United States. Its terms were described in a letter from the U.S. assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs to Sen. Jon Kyl, then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security: “In July of 2006, the Saudi Government confirmed to us its policy to undertake a program of textbook reform to eliminate all passages that disparage or promote hatred toward any religion or religious groups.” Furthermore, the State Department letter reported that this pledge would be fulfilled “in time for the start of the 2008 school year.”
Saudi Arabia has failed to keep its promise to the United States. One Wikileak cable from the US embassy reports that Saudi education reform seems “glacial.” In its newly released 2010 annual report on religious freedom, the State Department itself asserted, albeit with diplomatic understatement, with respect to Saudi Ministry of Education textbooks: “Despite government revisions to elementary and secondary education textbooks, they retained language intolerant of other religious traditions, especially Jewish, Christian, and Shi’a beliefs, including commands to hate infidels and kill apostates.” (emphasis added.)
Saudi government misrepresentations on its failure to reform national textbooks was in full display last month in the BBC Panorama’s expose of 40 Saudi part time schools in the UK, where it tried to deny that the schools were in any way connected to Riyadh. The television journalists investigated and found that in fact the Saudi Cultural Bureau, which is part of the embassy, did indeed have authority over the network To be clear, these 40 Saudi schools in the UK teach from the Saudi national curriculum, which was revealed on the show to include the lessons on killing apostates, polytheists and homosexuals, as well as on violent anti-Semitism.
Meanwhile, Saudi royals have stepped up their philanthropy to higher education around the world, for which they have garnered many encomiums and awards. Hardly a month goes by without a news report that one of the princes is endowing a new center of Islamic and Arabic studies, or a business or scientific department, at a foreign university. The king himself recently founded a new university for advanced science and technology inside Saudi Arabia.
These efforts have bought the royal family much good will, but they should not distract our political leaders from the central concern of the Saudi 1–12 religious curriculum. This is not the time for heaping unqualified praise on the aging monarch for promoting “knowledge-based education,” “extending the hand of friendship to people of other faiths,” promoting “principles of moderation, tolerance, and mutual respect,” and the like, (phrases with which our diplomatic statements on Saudi Arabia are replete).
The State Department needs to begin regular and detail reporting on the remaining objectionable and violent passages in Saudi government textbooks and to press in a sustained manner for the kingdom to keep its 2006 pledge to us regarding textbook reform. As USCIRF recommends, the administration should also lift the indefinite waiver of any action pursuant to the designation of Saudi Arabia as a “Country of Particular Concern” under the International Religious Freedom Act – the only “CPC” to receive an indefinite waiver.
In one of the Wikileaks cables written earlier this year on Saudi King Abdullah to Secretary Clinton, US Ambassador James Smith makes the following observation:
“Reflecting his Bedouin roots, he judges his counterparts on the basis of character, honesty, and trust. He expects commitments to be respected and sees actions, not words, as the true test of commitment….”
Bedouin or not, we should start demanding the same from him.
Delivered before the Religious Freedom Caucus of the US House of Representatives, December 1, 2010
Two quick comments on the following news item:
The first comment is by Marvi Sirmed (via Twitter):
Does it hit somewhere on Ghairat Brigade? So much in pain for drones & Kerry-Luger?
The Second comment is by Masroor from the ET website:
This all started in 18th century when Abdul Wahab Najdi fought with Muslims and killed 4000 Muslims who didn/t accept his ideology. He ruined the holy shrines, he was supported by US and UK. An agreement between US & Saud family (who supported Wahab’s ideology) was signed for oil & money, and they are still onto it. Saudia Arabia helps those people who accept their ideology, you can see in pakistan madarsas & mosques of deobandi & ahl-e-hadith sects, they are high in numbers & well developed, which is a clear evidence of Aaudia Arabia’s unconditional support to these sects. For details read book “Tareekh e najd o hijaz”
KARACHI: In a US embassy cable published by WikiLeaks, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the US Adel al Jubeir is quoted saying, “We in Saudi Arabia are not observers in Pakistan, we are participants.” That statement sums up decades of Saudi Arabia’s involvement in Pakistan’s political affairs.
While the UK and the US appear to play a visible role in the country, as Zardari is quoted as telling the US ambassador, “We won’t act without consulting you”, it has now emerged that Saudi Arabia is also a behind-the-scenes broker.
In 2000, many of Nawaz Sharif’s supporters were somewhat stunned as they watched a news broadcast of the man who vowed to “eat grass” if it meant Pakistan would have nuclear capability, waving them goodbye from a car. He was on his way to Saudi Arabia, where he would spend several years in exile until he returned to Pakistan in 2007.
In the kingdom, Sharif was a “guest” of the royal family, and conditions set by the Musharraf government for his exile included that Sharif would not serve time in jail, forfeit Rs500 million in property, would not return to Pakistan for 10 years and would be disqualified from holding public office for 21 years. A leaked memo reveals that prior to his return to Pakistan, Sharif had “promised the king to avoid questioning Musharraf’s recent political decisions in public.” Sharif had been serving a life sentence for a hijacking case when he was suddenly acquitted and left the country. But he had friends in powerful places. According to a 2000 Telegraph report, “Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Abdullah, who negotiated the deal, had threatened to cut diplomatic ties with Pakistan if his friend Sharif was not freed.”
But even though, as Ambassador al Jubeir is quoted saying, “Sharif broke his promise by conducting political activity while in the kingdom,” he is still a key figure for the Saudis. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al Faisal is quoted saying in a cable that Sharif is a “force for stability” and “a man who can speak across party lines even to religious extremists.” A US official also noted that the “Saudis have an economic hold on Sharif, since he was reportedly the first non-Saudi to receive a special economic development loan from the Saudi government with which to develop a business while here in exile.” It is evident that were Sharif to take charge again, he would have the backing of the kingdom.
The other “winning horse” in the Saudis’ book is the military. Praise flows for the military in leaked cables, with General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani described as a “good man”. The Saudis also emphasised the need for the military to be a stabilising influence and reiterated their support for former president Pervez Musharraf in 2007. “With all his (Musharraf’s) flaws,” al Jubeir reportedly said then, “he is the only person that you (the US) or we have to work with now.”
Even though the Pakistan-Saudi Arabia relationship is referred to in glowing terms in government-issued history books and official statements, leaked cables reveal that Saudi Arabia’s support of Pakistan is conditional on who is at the helm of affairs. The current Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP)-led government has found its relationship to be under strain because of a number of reasons. The kingdom, according to leaked cables, has historically disliked the PPP and fears that Zardari, who it suspects is Shia, could be part of a Shia triangle in the region (with Nur al Maliki’s government in Iraq and Mahmoud Ahmedinajad’s in Iran). This has also affected aid, as well as an agreement to provide oil to Pakistan at concessionary terms. Zardari has built strong ties with Iran, which is reportedly one of the reasons for the kingdom’s disapproval.
But even countries like the US understand the kingdom’s role, as is evident from cables reporting meetings between US and Saudi Arabia government officials. In a March 2009 cable, with tensions high over the long march, then-US ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson wrote, “We should encourage Zardari to continue efforts to ease tensions and ask the Saudis and the UAE to weigh in with their respective allies.”
Published in The Express Tribune, December 8th, 2010.
Shia-phobia of Saudi Arabia and the institutional genocide of Shia Muslims in Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan
Ever wondered why the Wahhabi-Deobandi inspired terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Sipah-e-Sahaba are blood thirsty for Shia Muslims?
Ever wondered why hundreds of Shias are killed like flies each year by the Wahhabi or/and Deobandi terrorist (who are accurately described as Takfiri Khariji by mainstream moderate Sunnis) in Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan?
The root cause must be found in the ideological and institutional hatred of the current rulers (Aal-e-Saud) of Saudi Arabia and their ideological masters (Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab and Ibn Taymiyyah) towards all non-Wahhabi Muslims, particularly Shia Muslims.
Saudi rulers and their ideological forefathers treat Shia Muslims as heretics, deviants, Jewish agents, who from a Wahhabi / Deobandi perspective are ‘worse than Christians, Jews etc’.
Therefore, no wonder terrorists of Sipah-e-Sahaba, Taliban, Al Qaeda etc proudly execute and own up every terrorist activity against Shia Muslims, be that in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere.
As an evidence of the Saudi Arabian institutional and genocidal hatred towards Shia Muslims, the following most recent revelations from Wikipedia must be considered.
1. Saudi Arabian offer of assistance to the USA and Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities;
2. Saudi Arabian extreme hatred for Iraqi Prime Minister Noori Al Maliki because of Mr Maliki’s religious belief (Shia Muslim);
3. Saudi Arabian contempt for Pakistan’s president Asif Zardari because of his (allegedly) Shia sect;
4. Saudi Arabian offer of assistance to the USA, Israel and Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon) to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon;
5. Saudi Arabian fear that the Wahhabi kingdom will be surrounded by Shia dominated countries (Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Zardari led Pakistan);
6. Saudi Arabian continued financial, logistical and ideological support to Al Qaeda and Taliban (virulently anti-Shia organisations);
7. Saudi Arabian continued financial, logistical and ideological support to Salafi jihadis of Lashkar-e-Taiba / Jamat-ud-Dawa (virulently anti-Shia organisations)
Headnote: Addressees of this note are those who are fool enough to think skeptically in this land of “born perfectionists”.
At first, let me share with you people an “exploding and exclusive” thought which has all ingredients of sensation (albeit sensibility).
Here you go: “World will never be the same after WikiLeaks.”
Heavy words. Aren’t they? This is the precious thought which might be “revealed” to you in direct words at times and if you are no so privileged yet, you may “sense” it embedded in wall-posts by scrolling down your Facebook homepage or simply by having casual conversation with people around you.
Hold on, if you don’t want to spoil your relation with the “revealer” of very thought then here I have a suggestion for you. “Never ever commit sin of questioning him/her with words like How/Why.” Providing, you may find yourself in two awkward situations, which ultimately will lead to tarnishing your relationship.
Situation1: She/he might enlighten you with limitless fairytales colored with not so imaginary characters of kings, queens, bishops and horses, which in the end might burst you into screaming or shouting on him/her.
Situation2: She/he might give you an annoyed look with a sigh whilst denouncing you in words “you have no idea of persisting political scenario of world and I don’t want to waste my time.”
Forget it, let’s move on. Out of curiosity, if you ever intend to enlighten yourself with the “revelations” of WikiLeaks, then I have recommendations for you depending upon two conditions.
Condition1: If you are out of time along with out of senses, then simply visit “official” websites of Daily Jang and/or Geo network. There you may find “leaking” of anything and everything except WikiLeaks.
Condition2: If you are really into it and have plenty of leisure time, then simply go to Google and type “WI” only. There’s no need to waste your time by typing whole word. Click the first appeared link and just wait and watch. If you are lucky enough then website might open in 37 minutes irrespective of busy server, otherwise wait till next dawn.
Now, allow me to hold the assumption that you have attained stature of “well-informed” person by swallowing all the “disclosures” of WikiLeaks and now you find yourself in problem related to digest them. Here, at helm of affairs, I’m not sure if you have ever acquainted with the “good ol’” saying “WWE: Don’t try it at home”. If you are well aware of “essence” of this saying then feel free to leave the note at this point, as I’m going to outline the “consequences” for those who would like to share these disclosures with “born perfectionists” of our society.
I, hereby, would like to recapitulate aftermaths regarding your endeavor of sharing WikiLeaks “disclosures” with other (not so) like-minded people, by highlighting three of “revelations”.
Revelation1: Saudis are biggest financiers of Al-Qaeda
After trying hard you manage somehow to mumble this sentence without any reluctance, in middle of room. There’s a pin drop silence in room which lasts for minute. At last, someone breaks the distasteful silence by screaming:
“Are you talking about Haadmen Harmen Shareefen?” (Whilst, listening the notion of Haadmen Harmen Shareefen, others from audience close their eyes down and start murmuring something sacred).
This is it. You are not in a position anymore to utter anything “foolish”. In case if you try to become Socrates then be ready for “295-C”.
Revelation2: Pak-Army is the key power player in Pakistani politics and ISI still enjoys close ties with Islamic fundamentalists and extremists
“This will helpful in proving me a well-informed person who has grasp on current affairs”-Thought comes into your mind and you commit biggest mistake of your life by declaring this (not so) secret “revelation” in a family gathering.
Your uncle gives you ferocious look from behind his spectacles:
“My son, you have no idea what you are talking about. Had Pak-army not taken responsibility of our ideological boundaries Pakistan would have been a Kaafir(secular) state. I’m observing that you are being influenced by the Zionist propaganda who want to disintegrate our country and throw Muslim countries into chaos. May God save you, I can only pray for you.”
Conversation ends and you have no other option except staring your toe.
Revelation3: Present PPP government has nothing to do with country’s defense and foreign policy
You will never be allowed to complete your sentence after the word “PPP” and here starts reiteration of a single name “Asif Ali Zardari”:
“You know what AAZ involves in land grabbing of 3 Marla plot in Nawabshah”
“I’ve heard that AAZ belongs to Ahmadi sect”
“They say that AAZ takes bath daily”
“This is confirm that AAZ is relative of Bal Thackeray”
And you will be forced to scream after:
“Come here, I tell you what, AAZ was involved in Benazir Bhutto’s assassination”
Welcome to land of born perfectionists.
Why So Serious?
Related Article: Progressive Pakistani bloggers in support of Julian Assange
It is ironic that the Saudis have labelled Zardari as a “rotten head”, while their whole body polity is rotten. This comment is like the pot calling the kettle black. Pakistan has much more respect for human rights and freedom to criticise the government, while Saudi Arabia is politically far behind.
Blessed are the people who live in post-Second World War times, when humankind has progressed more than it has ever done before. Blessed are the people who live in the times of information technology. Blessed are the people who live in the times of democratisation of information. Blessed are the people who are using this technological revolution to bring out in the open what our rulers do behind closed doors.
Throughout human history, information has been the key to progress. It was always jealously guarded by the privileged classes to further their personal and class interests. But now information is flying in cyberspace and is easy to access at very little cost. The WikiLeaks creator and his unknown soldiers are thus the revolutionaries of cyberspace, bringing current information to the people that in the past was found only in the researched history of politics.
I remember when I came across the first book based on diplomatic papers declassified by the US State Department in 1982. The book — The American Role in Pakistan, 1947-1958 — was written by Professor M Venkataramani. As the book was not available in Pakistan, it was with great difficulty that I managed to get a photocopied version (pardon me for copyright violation). The book is not just a collection of declassified papers, but Venkataramani has used the information to trace the history of the US’s role in Pakistan.
Those who are now crying wolf and loss of sovereignty to the US should read this book to get the right historical perspective. Unfortunately, ultra-nationalist friends forget that the Americans were invited to dinner by the founder of Pakistan: “On May 1, 1947, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, leader of the Muslim League, received two American visitors at his Bombay residence. They were Raymond A Hare, Head of the Division of South Asian Affairs, Department of State, and Thomas E Weil, Second Secretary of the US Embassy in India…he sought to impress on his visitors that the emergence of an independent, sovereign Pakistan would be in consonance with the American interests.
Pakistan would be a Muslim country. Muslim countries would stand together against Russian aggression. In that they would look towards the United States for assistance.” The meeting was reported by the US Charge de Affairs in Delhi, George E Merril, on May 2, 1947.
This is not the only incident that shows how Pakistan offered to play a strategic role to defend the region from ‘Russian aggression’, i.e. communism, and the spread of ‘Indian imperialism’ in the region. Right from day one, Pakistan has been asking for US arms to protect itself from the ‘Indian threat’. Liaquat Ali Khan followed this policy and, in his trip to the US in early May 1950, stressed: “Pakistan therefore politically, ideologically and strategically, holds the position of great responsibility…In addition to this, Pakistan is resolved to throw all its weights to help the maintenance of stability in Asia.”
In 1999, Oxford University Press published a book, The American Papers — Secret and Confidential, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh Documents, 1965-1973, compiled and selected by Roedad Khan, a former senior Pakistani bureaucrat. These papers give an insight into behind-the-doors American diplomacy during the liberation struggle of Bangladesh and the happenings before and after the Pakistan-India 1965 war. As it does not include all the papers and the selection was done by Roedad Khan, one wonders what the criterion for this selection was. But, unlike WikiLeaks, the compilation is from the archives that had been declassified officially.
Even in the case of WikiLeaks, one does not know whether some documents were held back by its editors as not much can be found on the assassination of Ms Benazir Bhutto. Although on the very next day of her killing, one finds that American Ambassador Anne Patterson wrote a rather long assessment of Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi, who she thought could be the next prime minister. The assessment is quite favourable. In this memo, she has mentioned Benazir Bhutto as “late”. Interestingly, in the same memo she has dealt in detail with the personal enmity between Elahi and the Bhutto family because of Chaudhry Zahoor Elahi’s assassination by Al Zulfikar (a militant group of PPP headed by Murtaza Bhutto). One reason for the omission of the US embassy’s memos on Bhutto’s assassination could be that the top secret category communication channel is perhaps still beyond WikiLeaks’ hackers.
While the media is outraged about the US administration and Pakistani politicians’ axis, they have underplayed the interference in Pakistan by the Saudi government. The Saudis have accepted that they are not just mere observers in Pakistan’s politics but were “participants”. Their interference in Pakistan’s politics and unabated support to the Islamic extremist groups has damaged the country’s peace.
Whether it is an issue of our leaders, closeness with American and British diplomats or unabated drone attacks, outraged media and some politicians shout from the pulpit that our sovereignty is being violated by the big powers. But very seldom do these protagonists of sovereignty mull over the fact that our political and territorial boundaries are breached by other countries. When we speak against the interference of foreign powers in our politics — and rightly so — we should keep in mind the basic principle of international laws regarding sovereignty. These laws have evolved over the last many centuries.
According to Professor Dr Douglas Stuart, “State sovereignty still remains an ambiguous and convoluted theory. As one looks at the role of state sovereignty in today’s international system, it is important to set some basic guidelines.” He argues that “the empowerment of local movements by strong international non-state actors poses a serious challenge to the theory of state sovereignty”.
This is where Pakistan’s predicament begins with its paranoia about India. Dictated by the same sense of insecurity and myopic view, our establishment has also gotten itself stuck in the quagmire of Afghanistan. The desire to have a client state in Afghanistan has made us pushy to the extent that most governments in Kabul have remained unhappy with Islamabad. And in the process we have willingly become a client state of the US and Saudi Arabia.
Monday, 10 August 2009, 23:56
S E C R E T STATE 083026
RELEASABLE TO PAKISTAN
EO 12958 DECL: 08/07/2019
TAGS EFIN, KTFN, PREL, PTER, UNSC
SUBJECT: UN 1267 (AL-QAIDA/TALIBAN) SANCTIONS: USG
OPPOSITION TO FOCAL POINT DE-LISTING REQUEST FOR JUD AND HAFIZ SAEED
REF: STATE 65044
Classified By: IO“>IO“>IO Assistant Secretary Esther Brimmer for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)
1. (U) This is an action request. Please see paragraphs 4-6.
SUMMARY AND OBJECTIVES
2. (SBU) In May 2009, legal representatives for 1267-listed entity Jamaat-ud-Dawah (identified by the UN 1267 Committee as an alias for Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, permanent reference number QE.L.118.05) and its leader, Muhammad Saeed (permanent reference number QI.S.263.08) petitioned on their clients behalf for delisting via the UN focal point. The focal point, which was established in the UN Secretariat pursuant to UNSCR 1730 to allow listed individuals/entities (or their representatives) to petition directly for de-listing, forwarded the de-listing request on behalf of JUD and Saeed for review to the USG (designating state) and to the Government of Pakistan (state of citizenship/residence/incorporation). The USG and GOP have had three months to review the de-listing petition. We have completed our review and plan to notify the UN focal point on August 25 of our opposition to de-listing. Before doing so, we would like to take this opportunity to: — share the results of our review of the de-listing petition for JUD and Muhammad Saeed with Pakistani officials; — seek GOP views on the request; — underscore our ongoing concern over the threat posed by LeT/JUD and Saeed; — ask Pakistani officials to update us on actions taken to impose UN 1267 sanctions on LeT/JUD and Saeed.
3. (S) On December 10, 2008, the UN 1267 Committee took several actions related to the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Tayibba (LeT), including its listing of Jamaat-ud-Dawah (JUD) as an alias for LeT, as well as the listing of JUD’s leader, Muhammad Saeed. The Committee in 2005 added LeT to its Consolidated List citing its affiliation with al-Qaida. The addition of the JUD alias, as well as the listing of Saeed, followed closely on the heels of the LeT-perpetrated attacks in Mumbai, India, in November 2008. Prior to the attacks, our request to list JUD and Saeed were placed on hold by China at the behest of Pakistan. In spite of Pakistani acquiescence to the listings in December 2008, we continue to see reporting indicating that JUD is still operating in multiple locations in Pakistan, and that the group continues to openly raise funds. It is unclear what, if any, steps the GOP has taken to freeze JUD’s assets or otherwise implement UN 1267 sanctions, which include an asset freeze, travel ban, and arms embargo.
4. (SBU) USUN is requested to inform the focal point on August 25, after both USUN and Islamabad have had a chance to inform Pakistani officials of our views, of our opposition to the de-listing request on behalf of JUD and Muhammad Saeed. In its communication to the focal point, USUN should refute the assertion in Saeed’s and his legal representatives claim in the focal point de-listing petition that “there are no grounds for placing Saeed and JUD on the Consolidated List and the material relied upon is incorrect and baseless” and note that we stand by the information included in the statements of case we submitted (co-sponsored by the UK and France) to the UN 1267 Committee to add JUD and Saeed to the Consolidated List. USUN should further state that we have seen no evidence of a change in circumstance warranting de-listing of JUD or Saeed.
5. (SBU) USUN and Embassy Islamabad should inform Pakistani officials in New York and Islamabad, respectively, of our opposition to the de-listing petition for JUD and Saeed. Action addressees may wish to draw upon the following points:
— We have reviewed the de-listing petition from attorneys on behalf of Jamaat-ud Dawa (JUD) and its leader Hafiz Saeed and will soon inform the UN 1267 Committee, via the UN focal point, of our opposition to de-listing.
— We first wanted to share our views with Pakistani officials, and to seek Pakistan’s view on the de-listing petition.
— As you are no doubt aware, we are deeply concerned about the threat posed by LeT/JUD, and reject Saeed’s and his legal representatives claim in the focal point de-listing petition that “there are no grounds for placing Saeed and JUD on the Consolidated List and the material relied upon is incorrect and baseless.”
— In fact, LeT and JUD stem from the same original organization, Markaz-ud-Dawawal-Irshad (MDI). When LeT was declared a terrorist organization in Pakistan in 2002, MDI publicly divested itself of LeT at that time and renamed itself JUD. LeT transferred most of its assets and personnel to the newly formed JUD, ensuring its survival.
— We believe that LeT uses JUD facilities as a public front for its activities and shares offices, phone numbers, personnel and bank accounts. LeT’s old offices merely changed the name on the door.
— JUD’s budget, using funds from both witting and unwitting donors, is dedicated to social services and/or humanitarian relief but some is used to finance LeT operations.
— We are also aware that LeT and JUD share many senior leaders, including Hafiz Saeed, who according to information available to the USG, as of 2009 continued to control LeT and issue guidance to LeT members.
— We would like here your views on the status of LeT/JUD and Saeed, and would particularly appreciate an update on steps Pakistan has taken or will take to implement UN 1267 sanctions on them.
6. (S/REL to Pakistan) Embassy Islamabad is also requested to share a non-paper, included below in paragraph 7, prepared by our intelligence community in February 2009 assessing JUD’s links to LeT. This non-paper, which was previously passed by former S/CT Coordinator Dell Daily to Pakistani Ambassador to the United States Husain Haqqani, provides more detailed information on our concerns about LeT/JUD and Saeed that underpin our view that their listing by the UN 1267 Committee was and remains appropriate.
7. (S/REL to Pakistan) BEGIN TEXT OF NON-PAPER
(U//FOUO) Assessing Jamaat-ud-Dawa’s Links to Lashkar-e-Tayyiba
(S//REL) The Community assesses that LT, a Pakistan-based terrorist group, uses the JUD name as an alias. JUD is a religious, educational, and humanitarian organization that the Community assesses provides cover and protection for LT‘s militant activities in Pakistan. LT and JUD share many senior leaders; LT falls under the authority of JUD leader Hafiz Muhammad Saeed; and JUD supports and facilitates LT‘s violent activities. – LT and JUD stem from the same original organization*Markaz-ud-Dawawal-Irshad (MDI)*that was founded around 1986 and for which LT served as its armed, militant wing. MDI was renamed JUD in December 2001. – LT was declared a terrorist organization in January 2002, and MDI publicly divested itself of the LT at that time. LT transferred most of its assets and personnel under the newly formed JUD.
(S//REL) The Community assesses that JUD relies heavily on private donations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), madrassas, and businesses spread throughout South Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. Some of the money to finance LT operations is obtained by fraudulently redirecting donations intended for humanitarian work.
(S//REL) JUD and LT have branch offices with different names and have adopted a number of aliases as a denial and deception tactic.
(C//REL) Various Names and Aliases
(S//REL) The Intelligence Community assesses that Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LT) and Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JUD) are part of the same organization, originally called Markaz-ud-Dawawal-Irshad (MDI), that was founded by Hafiz Muhammed Saeed and other faculty at the University of Engineering and Technology in Lahore in 1986. MDI was established with funding from donors in the Middle East and set up camps to prepare its personnel to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.
MDI reorganized after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989, creating LT as its paramilitary wing to fight in the Indian-controlled districts of Jammu and Kashmir while MDI focused on religious and humanitarian activity. Saeed led both MDI and LT during the 1990s.
When the US declared LT a terrorist organization in December 2001, MDI reorganized*changing its name to JUD to draw a distinction between its charitable and educational work and LT‘s militant activities*in an effort by MDI leaders to shield their fundraising and other activities from sanctions. Saeed publicly resigned from LT, telling the media that he had assumed the leadership of JUD. In mid-January 2002, LT was banned.
Islamabad “watchlisted” JUD in 2003, but the government has resisted pressure to take action against the group, particularly after JUD,s popular earthquake relief efforts in 2005 and 2006 in response to the October 2005 earthquake in Pakistan.
LT has used JUD facilities as a public front for its activities and, shared offices, phone numbers, leaders, and bank accounts. LT members identified themselves as JUD when in Pakistan and as LT when in Kashmir.
LT/JUD purportedly raises funds for the Palestinian people in response to Israel’s attacks on Gaza. The Community judges that as of January, JUD also may be operating under the alias Tehreek-e-Hurmat-e-Rasool. LT‘s political affairs coordinator Khalid Waleed identified himself in late December as the chief organizer for a conference for Tehreek-e-Hurmat-e-Rasool, according to intelligence reporting. – On 6 February, the JUD held a Kashmir Solidarity Conference at which JUD renamed itself Tehreek-e-Azadi-e-Kashmir (TAK). At JUD,s first public protest since December, supporters used old JUD banners and chanted JUD slogans, but rallied under the name TAK to avoid arrest.
BEGIN TEXT BOX
(U//FOUO) UN Links Jamaat-ud-Dawa to Terrorism
(S//REL) The United Nations (UN) banned Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JUD), and on 10 December, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee (the 1267 Committee) approved the addition of JUD as a new LT alias for targeted sanctions. This UN designation required all UN member states to freeze any assets this entity may have under the member states’ jurisdiction, impose a travel ban, and implement an arms embargo against them as set out in paragraph 1 of UNSC Resolution 1822 of 2008.
(S//REL) The Community assesses that LT/JUD, in an attempt to evade restrictions, has established branch offices with different names and adopted a number of aliases. One branch, Idara Khidmat-e-Khalq, is a publicly acknowledged charitable arm of JUD and has its own web page with photos of hospitals and ambulances. Other aliases include Paasbaan-e-Ahle-Hadith, Paasban-e-Kashmir, Al-Mansoorian, and Al-Nasaryeen. We assess that LT and LT-associated militants will continue to use aliases in order to circumvent restrictions on their movement and operations.
END TEXT BOX
(U//FOUO) Financial Support
(S//REL) The Community assesses that JUD fundraising has relied heavily on private donations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), madrassas, and businesses spread throughout South Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. Some of JUD’s budget, using funds raised both from witting donors and by fraud, is dedicated to social services or humanitarian relief projects, while some is used to finance LT operations. – In December 2005, an official of Idara Khidmat-e-Khalq forwarded JUD donation receipts to a probable LT front company in Saudi Arabia where an LT finance official may have been closely associated with the general manager*possibly acting as a front for moving LT funds, according to intelligence reporting. – Makki in 2002 frequently visited the Middle East and viewed it as a main source of funding. To demonstrate results to donors, JUD would finance the cost of building a new school or upgrading facilities at a madrassa, but would inflate the cost to siphon money to LT.
(S//REL) The Community lacks sufficient intelligence to determine if or how the November Mumbai attacks have affected donations to JUD. Some donors may be dissuaded from supporting JUD if they become aware that their funds may be used for additional terrorist attacks, whereas other donors may support LT‘s attacks. As public and government scrutiny increases in the wake of the attacks and subsequent designation of JUD as an alias of LT by the UN, we assess that JUD will rely more on covert fundraising efforts.
(S//REL) The Community assesses that Saeed is the leader of LT and Lakvi is LT‘s operations commander*and they continue to run the organization despite being detained for their role in the November Mumbai attacks. We also judge that they have planned, directed, and executed LT attacks throughout South Asia and likely have used some funds collected in the name of JUD’s charitable activities to support multiple LT terrorist operations, including the November Mumbai attacks. The Community assesses that Saeed continues to lead both organizations. However, the Community is unable to assess to what extent senior JUD leaders such as Saeed are involved in specific terrorist operations or the level of detail to which they are knowledgeable about specific past and pending attacks. – As of mid-July Lakvi was responsible for the LT‘s military operations budget of PKR 365 million (approximately US $5.2 million) per year. He reportedly used the money to purchase all materials required for LT operations other than weapons and ammunition, according to a source claiming direct and ongoing access to LT leaders.
END TEXT OF NON-PAPER
REPORTING DEADLINE AND POINT OF CONTACT
8. (U) Action addressees should report as soon as possible but no later than August 19 results of their demarche to Pakistani officials .
9. (U) Questions may be directed to IO“>IO“>IO/PSC (Erin Crowe, 202-736-7847). CLINTON
By Ayesha Siddiqua Agha
One was always concerned about President Asif Ali Zardari’s rule but never expected that it would get so bad that even King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia would remark that Pakistan’s president was leading the country to disaster. If a monarchical state, which oppresses its people, refuses to do justice and is historically a lackey of foreign governments, this suggests that Pakistani leadership is bad — it means things are really gloomy.
For many Pakistani leaders, Abdullah’s words seem to give ‘holy’ sanction to their own displeasure of Zardari. And though we may be the guarantors of Saudi security against a nuclear Iran in the future, Riyadh is perceived as the primary partner in our bilateral relationship. We never even complain about the treatment of our citizens in Saudi Arabia. It is influential to the degree that a lot of Pakistani politicians are seen constantly running to Riyadh for both consultation and dictation. It certainly happened a lot more during the 1980s, the 1990s and the 2000s. It is perhaps that the current regime does not run to Saudi Arabia so much that provoked Abdullah to make the statement. The Kingdom has been an important interlocutor between Washington and Islamabad.
It’s a little known fact that relations between the two ‘sisterly/brotherly’ Islamic states have been less exciting, especially since Islamabad put its foot down over the previous Saudi ambassador’s alleged involvement in dolling money to militant outfits in Pakistan. He was packed off from the host state after he did not adhere to its sensitivity. The WikiLeaks also pointed out diplomatic chatter about Saudi Arabia continuing to support some of the militant outfits or individuals. The grapevine in Islamabad also suggests that bilateral relations might be less pleasant due to Zardari diverting greater concessions to some of the Gulf rulers versus Saudi Arabia.
On a more serious note, the Abdullah related WikiLeak cable raises the fundamental question of how the Pakistani state tends to welcome all forms of imperialism including Arab imperialism. If it is not Saudi Arabia then it is one of the Persian Gulf states whose rulers silently intervene in our politics. The favours they seem to do are not for our people, but for our corrupt leadership that tends to use these states for its personal ends. The ordinary citizen is shown no respect and is treated as some would treat those from a lower cast, or even worse.
But then why should one expect the Saudis or Gulf rulers to be sympathetic when they do not show concern for their own people? I am reminded of a book written during the 1990s by a Saudi, which talked about the short-sightedness of the royals.
Our Arab friends, who we look up to, are totally given to their own interests. One of their key interests is in our military capacity which they hope we will provide one day to counter Iran, if trouble ever erupts. Not surprisingly, WikiLeaks also talk about Riyadh encouraging Washington to fight Iran. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. Read some of the older books by Henry Kissinger and there is discussion of Riyadh under Shah Faisal being unhappy with the Arab attack on Israel in 1973. The main concern was that Egypt, Syria and others might then replace Saudi Arabia as prominent leaders of the Islamic world.
From Islamabad’s perspective, what is truly criminal is our inability to check Saudi and Gulf imperialism that represents itself through funding of militants for the sake of fighting a cold war with Iran. Pakistan’s governments hardly react to the fact that all militant organisations received funds from our Middle Eastern and Persian Gulf friends, and continue to do so. While we are more critical of Iranian money, any criticism of others is brushed under the carpet. Not to forget the fact that we are always keen to provide all sorts of ‘strategic’ help in the name of the Muslim Ummah, which probably exists in our mind but not in the minds of the leaders of many Muslim states.
The WikiLeaks have done nothing beyond filling details on what we already knew. Perhaps, we may be wise to rethink our options.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 5th, 2010.
It was never really a secret that Saudi Arabia did not like Iran.
It was never really a secret that Saudi Arabia did not like Iran. Perhaps there may be a sectarian history to this or maybe it is simple old realpolitik with two large states vying for regional power. But Saudi Arabia isn’t the only Muslim country that seems to loathe Iran. There is the UAE and Kuwait as well as, albeit to a lesser extent, Qatar.
According to a cable of Feb 9, 2010, from US ambassador to UAE to Admiral Mike Mullen, head of the US armed forces, prior to the latter’s meeting with the UAE crown prince and defence minister, the UAE is one of America’s most trusted partners in the region and “most useful friends worldwide”.
The ports of Dubai and Fujairah are the “logistics backbone for the US Fifth [Fleet]“. The US Navy’s Fifth Fleet is responsible for operations in the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, Arabian Sea and down south as far as eastern Africa. Minhad airbase, some 20 kilometres south of Dubai is “a critical hub for coalition/ISAF partners in Afghanistan, including the Australians, Dutch, Canadians, Brits and Kiwis”.
This cable says that the UAE leadership sees Iran as its “primary external threat”. The defence minister and crown prince of the UAE is said to not believe that the west will be able to put adequate pressure on Iran and also is of the view, according to this cable, that Tehran cannot be persuaded to give up its nuclear weapons programme. As a result, his efforts to build up the UAE’s armed forces is seen as “near-obsessive”. The UAE has “quietly” deployed forces in Afghanistan, being the first Arab country to do so. The Americans are told by the UAE defence minister, much to their disbelief, that Iran is active in destabilising Yemen, by supporting the Houthi (who are said to Shia) rebels.
The UAE’s obsession with Iran seems to run deeper than that of even the Americans. According to cable dated Feb 22, 2010, from the American ambassador to the UAE, the country’s foreign minister Sheikh Adullah Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, told a visiting delegation of US Congress members in a meeting on Feb 17 that the nuclear issue “is only one aspect of the Iran problem, and that Iran’s regional meddling was a serious concern”. He said further that the UAE was concerned that “Gulf allies were being shut out of Iran sanctions planning”.
A cable by the US embassy in Kuwait dated Feb 17, 2010, detailed a meeting between Kuwait’s interior minister Jaber Al-Khaled Al Sabah and the US ambassador. The minister said that he was “deeply concerned about Iranian actions, particularly in Yemen with the Houthis” and that Iran was the “beating heart” of Islamic extremism, adding that “even Palestinians now aspire to be Shia because they have bought Iranian ‘stories’ about Shia being more prepared to “fight to the end” and stand up to Israel”.
A cable by the US embassy in Muscat, Oman, dated Feb 2, 2010, suggested that Oman was very unhappy about an article in the New York Times that had perhaps suggested that it, along with other Gulf states, was going to receive Patriot missile batteries from America. In a ‘comment’ on the reaction of the government of Oman, the US embassy noted that a statement by a senior Omani official denying any such proposal would also serve to “protect the US/Omani relationship, as any belief that the US would attempt to utilize Omani territory in this way could potentially cause a public backlash that would jeopardize other aspects of the relationship”. Furthermore, while “Iran is Oman’s number one strategic threat; however, the Government of Oman fundamentally believes the threat can be mitigated through careful management of the relationship. Therefore, it works very deliberately to create a public perception of balance in its relationships with the US and Iran”.
According to a cable of Jan 26, 2010, from the US embassy in Ankara prior to a visit by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan’s stance on Israel came up, especially his “outburst at Davos”. The cable said that both the Americans and “his staff” (meaning that of the Turkish prime minister) were seeking to “contain” such behaviour.
A cable describing a meeting on Feb 8, 2010, between and the US defence secretary and the French foreign minister in Paris quoted the two discussing the situation in Pakistan. It quoted him as saying that it was “astonishing” that President Zardari had remained in power and that the Pakistanis had conducted such effective COIN operations. The defence secretary “commented that one can never be an optimist about Pakistan, but that the changes had been striking”.
A cable from Jan 28, 2009, detailed a meeting between the Dutch and Russian ambassadors to Saudi Arabia, accompanied by a senior US embassy official with the undersecretary for multilateral affairs at the ministry of foreign affairs in Riyadh. During the course of the meeting, discussion came on Iran with the Saudi official saying that if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons “other countries in the Gulf region would be compelled to do the same, or to permit the stationing of nuclear weapons in the Gulf to serve as a deterrent to the Iranians”.