Yemen and Tunisia- another tragic week for the Middle East

[Wannabestepfordwife]

Is anyone else following the two main terrorist attacks in the ME.

Yesterday's Mosque attack in Yemen www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3004359/Death-toll-rises-126-Yemen-mosque-bombings-medical-source.html and earlier in the week the Bardo Mueseum attack in Tunis www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/shots-fired-at-tunisian-parliament-10116173.html.

I was concerned about IS anyway but they have accepted responsibility for both attacks and I'm concerned about where and how big the next attack is going to be.

The Middle East really seems to me to be imploding. There's Syria and Iraq, the instability in Yemen and Eygpt, increasing amounts of refugees in Lebanon and Jordan, increasing brutality in Saudi and Netanyahu being re-elected.

I am really concerned about the precarious situation and what the immediate future holds.

The gossip is that this is good news, IS are turning like Al Quaida so can only do dramatic single terrorist incidents rather than taking over whole countries.

Is it the Muslim world that's imploding? Is it Islam or is it tinkering from the west who have so much interest in oil. Except that neither Yemen nor Tunisia have oil. Is the problem Saudi Arabia and extremist oil-rich sheikhs flushed with money so buying huge amounts of arms and funding all this madness?

In Yemen, the Houthis, who are Shia Muslims, recently overthrew the leader and kicked him out. Saudi Arabia, the West etc are not keen on Shia influence spreading e.g. Iran, Assad, Hezbollah etc.

IS is a Sunni group, originally funded by rich Sunnis in Saudi and some other Western allies.

"Islamic State (IS) say its militants carried out suicide bombings on two mosques in the Yemeni capital, Sanaa, which killed at least 137 people.

The attacks are the first claimed by IS - a Sunni group - since it set up a branch in Yemen in November."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-31989844

So now we read that IS, the Sunni group, has set up a branch in Yemen which presumably will be used to try and stop the Houthis and the Shia influence.

The Western backed toppling of Liby's Gaddafi has led to the disintegration of Libya and the rise of militant Sunni Jihadis etc all over Libya who are spilling out to destabilise the entire region.

The question is why isn't ISIS, this band of Jihadi volunteers from many countries, being stopped and finished off? Why isn't Assad being helped to put an end to this relatively newly formed group? Why are they destabilising the entire region and are any wealthy Sunni backers gaining by the destabilisation and the attacks on Shia Islam?

'Egyptian president wants coalition to act against ISIS in Libya'

www.cbc.ca/news/world/egyptian-president-wants-coalition-to-act-against-isis-in-libya-1.2959692

Why is this not happening?

Who gains by the Syrian civil war which has been allowed to continue for 4 years now with hundreds of thousands dead and millions displaced and suffering? Who is arming the Sunni rebels who are fighting the Syrian army, who is paying to keep the war going for 4 years?

Claig I would love to know why IS seem to be been given free reign and there doesn't seem to be any concerted effort to obliterate them.

Patrick Cockburn has done a really interesting, upsetting series this week in the independent about life under IS. The Western media seems so hell bent on sensationalising IS and making members into quasi celebrities that it has forgotten about how horrific life is for those living under them.

I apologise in advance if any of my opinions are ignorant or overly simplistic but I am only just starting to read up on Middle Eastern history.

I think the West definitely needs to reevaluate its relationship with Saudi and the gulf states. It seems almost hypocritical to have had Iran on the terrorist list for so long yet have such close relations with states which have exported Wahhabism which is responsible for terrorism.

www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/oct/06/water-wars-business-governments-scarcity-pollution-access I maybe delving into conspiracy theorist territory but I am not sure western interest is about oil anymore.

The Euphrates and Tigris runs through Turkey whom politicians are desperate to join the EU, Iraq and Syria which are basically states of anarchy and Iran whom we are improving relations with.

Then there is the Nile running through Eygpt, Sudan and South Sudan all hot beds of instability.

Apologies for the tangent (stopped myself from speculating about the River Niger) I just don't believe the Wests interest in the Middle East is down to oil especially now the US is self sufficient with fracking .

Back on tangent it's horrific the amount of people who have lost their lives in terror attacks this week but it just doesn't seem to generate the interest that tge Charlie Hebdo attack or the three British girls joining IS does.

Water is important but it is not what te big powers care about in the main because it does not generate the billions and choke off industrial development that oil does.

The whole climate game is about control of resources and restricting the use of those resources which are said to "harm the planet". Water is one of these resources that can be used as a chokepoint on societies that are short of water. But oil is where the real money and power is because eventually control of oil can deny those resources to enemy countries.

The whole Syria war is over the proposed Iran/Iraq/Syria pipeline which would bring large economic benefits to the Shia world which is not in the interests of the West, Saudi and Qatar. Saudi are one of our top allies. They are with us and the mujahideen in Afghanistan were used against Russia and funded by our Saudi allies.

What is happening in the Middle East is a process of destabilisation and weakening of countries and competitors that are not on our side, or not in our interests or not on the side of our allies.

Eventually after all the destabilisation which will impoverish the region and prevent growth, someone will need to be called in to restore order and that wlll ensure control of the region. Independent sovereign countries like Libya have been destroyed and they cannot challenge the interests of the billionaires who will be able to now control the region.

There is an almighty battle going on in the world between different power forces - bankers, billionaires and the countries they influence etc to determine which power elite will control the world and world financial system in this century.

The real threat to the West is the rise of China - and Russia, which has oil, is being picked off first in order to grab its resources and prevent it aiding China in the coming battle against China.

There are commentators who say that fracking is really a scam that is not economically viable and as we see with the coordinated Saudi drop in oil price aimed at ruining Russia, fracking is now no longer economically viable and is leading to bankers losing money on ther fracking loans.

Some commentators say that the reason that the battle for hegemony is hotting up is because the banking financial system is essentially bust and the looting of other countries is in full force in order to try and maintain it.

There are increasing threats to dollar hegemony and this could lead to disaster for the financial system, particularly in the West, but also worldwide.

'Support for China-led development bank grows despite US opposition

Australia indicates it could join UK, New Zealand as founding member of Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, which Washington views with suspicion'

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/13/support-china-led-development-bank-grows-despite-us-opposition-australia-uk-new-zealand-asia

This is bad news because the bankers are beginning to lose their power and they will go to great lengths to maintain control which is why wars are becoming ever more likely against Russia in Ukraine, in Syria and elsewhere.

Hopefully they can all sort it out and come to a fair deal to organise the world economy and prevent chaos, but the oligarchy, the elite and the banking moguls may not be prepared to compromise and lose some of their power. If not then there is likely to be more worldwide chaos and squeezing of the people as the elite try to maintain control.

Assad wanted a deal and wants to end the 4 year Syrian war which is destroying the country, but for 4 years the billionaires have not allowed a deal to end the war that is being funded by rich Saudis and is in Turkish and other Western interests. The lives of millions of refugees and ordinary people are not as important to the billionaire power banking elite as future control and influence. It is the same in Ukraine. The power elites deal with the big picture and human lives come lower down the scale of importance to them.

Practically every country on the planet is against the barbaric Isis who behead people, destroy world heritage sites and commit disgusting atrocities. Russia is against them, Syria and Iran and Iraq are against them. China is against this barbarism. So why is there no world coalituon to eradicate this cancer on humanity? Who is preventing it happening, how are they being armed and financed? Why are they not wiped out by the entire civilized world?

"Egypt is seeking to form an international coalition, including France, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE, to take part in aerial attacks against ISIS in Libya, Anadolu reported on Monday.

"Discussions about a coalition are ongoing," said an anonymous diplomat. "The attacks are to target ISIS terrorist camps in Libya." No more details about the discussions were revealed.

The same source said that there are also discussions between Egypt and Russia to get Moscow's support for the operations in Libya. "The Russians welcomed Egypt's courageous response and pledged to offer all help needed in this regard," added the diplomat.

A spokesman for the Egyptian foreign ministry, Bader Abdul-Ati, confirmed the news about the coalition. "The foreign minister said that there are some ideas about forming an Arabic force," he said. "Such ideas will be discussed in the upcoming meeting of the Arab League scheduled for the end of March."

www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/africa/17015-egypt-seeks-international-coalition-against-isis-in-libya

Isn't about time that it haopened as a matter of urgency. Isn't it time that Boko Haram and all the rest of the Jihadis were destroyed by a united world coalition? Who is actually backing and funding these groups?

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/26/saudi-arabia-begins-airstrikes-against-houthi-in-yemen It really looks like its going to kick off.

"Isn't about time that it haopened as a matter of urgency. Isn't it time that Boko Haram and all the rest of the Jihadis were destroyed by a united world coalition?"

A worldwide 'Crusade' huh?

Bigger, with more men and bombs than the Bush/Blair one huh?

What better way to recruit to ISIS than that; why do you think they keep trying to outrage the West, from international beheadings of innocents that make no sense to cultural destruction?

Its a Shia/Sunni 'thang', and Saudi Arabia has to watch the pro Iranian Shia's in Yemen, as they do across the Causeway in Bahrain.

ISIS is a relatively small army, several times smaller than the Iraqi army, but across two large States/areas, but is being worn down - there is no Western solution that involves tens of thousands 'boots on ground', especially ours, especially as when Cameron asked for Syrian 'options' (ISIS HQ), parliament playing games, voted no.

"especially as when Cameron asked for Syrian 'options' (ISIS HQ), parliament playing games, voted no."

But Cameron wanted to bomb Assad's Syrian army. Assad is fighting ISIS.

Rather than bombing Assad as Cameron wanted, I agree with Lord Dannatt, ex-head of the army

"He [Lord Dannatt] also said the government should open talks with the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad as part of the campaign against Isis."

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/22/uk-us-bombing-isis-militants-lord-dannatt-syria-assad

I think we need to finish ISIS off with the help of Egypt and everyone else in the region who is opposed to them. A joint plan and campaign involving every country that is against them and against Boko Haram and all the rest of the Jihadis in order to eliminate the threat from the whole lot of them.

As so often, Peter Hitchens sums it up on his blog

"The fact is, our policy is a nonsense. Our key ‘ally’ and fellow NATO member, Turkey, has at the very least, and the very kindest, a foot in both camps. We refuse to give material aid or diplomatic backing to the most effective fighters against ISIS, the Syrian Army and the Syrian Kurds. A year ago we wanted to support the very people we now wish to bomb into oblivion. We have yet to explain or retract or apologise for this apparently mad policy, or even admit that it might have been mistaken."

hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/10/do-we-actually-have-a-policy-in-the-middle-east-.html

I have always thought the west should let the GCC and the League of Arab nations take more responsibility for the ME but I feel very uncomfortable with Saudi leading the charge (I can't explain why just a gut feeling)

looking for ‘elite’ plots on your shopping list, and you’ll find the world less confusing.

In Syria with an 87% Muslim population, the majority 74% of Sunnis were being oppressed/murdered by Pres. Assad, an Alawite, which is a Shia offshoot – hence Cameron wanted permission to PROTECT the Sunni ‘rebels’, mainly by taking out Assad’s heavily military equipment, moving from town to town, killing and displacing Sunnis – with 4 million now refugees, having more than doubled over the past few years.

Saudi Arabia, a mainly Sunni State, supported ISIS in the early days, as the West could no longer be relied on to help the Sunnis of Syria, being murdered by Assad.

Iraqi Sunnis, the bees pyjamas sect under Sunni Saddam, were then isolated under the post war Shia government.

ISIS, wants to form a islamist Sunni caliphate for a base & to keep Sunni’s ‘safe’ (from everyone accept the murderers of ISIS), straddling Iraq and Syria.

HENCE ISIS knew the caliphate was possible as they in addition to their own Sunni Jihadists, there were disenfranchised Sunnis across both the Iraq and Syrian states – all potential ISIS recruits, if they could be rallied behind a cause e.g. American and UK ‘infidels’ invading their land and killing Muslims.

To conclude; unless continually treated mainly as ‘a local difficulty’ with some western help from the air, the mass global attack you promote to ‘wipe islamist Sunnis off the face of this earth’ (having disagreed with Cameron’s attempt to have options to help stop the Sunni’s flocking to ISIS by protecting them in Syria) – is possibly THE best way to get global Sunnis to rally to the ISIS cause. IMO.

P.S. While Saudi Arabia with a few thousand rich princes and rich businessmen has a domestic strong/strict Sunni religious belief, they will look to help finance Sunnis anywhere in the world against Shia 'aggression' - especially when Iran their Shia arch enemy is behind it.

....the above was for Claig.

In full, as suffering drag and drop, missing most of the first para;

Claig .. I reiterate Sunni versus Shia, as get your head around that, and stop looking for ‘elite’ plots on your shopping list, and you’ll find the world less confusing...........

rt.com/op-edge/244253-shia-isis-iraq-sunni-power/ I know this article is likely to be biased but I do think it has a point that anti-Shia feeling could be partially down to anti-Iranian sentiment- well in the West anyway.

I may be off the mark but I can't help but feel the U.S. and Russia are using the Sunni/Shia conflict as a way to have a proxy war

There are a number of factors involved.

Israel wants to stop Iran getting a nuclear bomb and there has been talk over teh years of a strike on Iran. Netanyahu addressed the Senat just weeks ago and reiterated that Iran should not be allowed to develop bomb.

Saudi Arabia wants Iran curbed because its Shia Islam is a potential force against Saudi's strict Wahhabi Sunni Islam.

Then there is oil. In about 2010 Iran, Iraq and Syria agreed to make a pipeline so that oil and gas, I think, would get to Europe via Syria. This was not in the interests of Qatar who have their own huge fields and want to supply Europe.

In about 2010 the Syrian rebels started opposing the Assad regime. They were funded by some of our allies to topple Assad. Syria is supposed to fall so that it weakens Shia Islam before any possible attack on Iran.

Russia and Iran do not want war and Russia wants to protect its naval base interests in Syria etc.

The Free Syrian Army has been helped which is why the war has lasted 4 years.

"Update: U.S. training Syrian rebels; White House 'stepped up assistance'

CIA and U.S. military operatives have been secretly teaching Syrian rebels how to use anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns, the Los Angeles Times has learned. The White House refuses to confirm but says 'substantial assistance' is being provided."

articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/21/world/la-fg-wn-cia-syria-20130621

Against all expectations and against all the billions that have been thrown against Assad by some forces in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, Assad has survived for 4 years. In fact, Assad is winning and the Free Syrian Army needs lots of help. Bombing Assad would have helped the Free Syrian Army but for some reason Cameron failed to get it through and did not try again and just dropped it. The US military does not seem to have pushed to do it and it was dropped by Obama.

Isis, Al Nusra and all teh rest of them were aided by Sunni forces to help try and topple Assad. But against all the money and forces thrownat him, he is still winning.

Russia helped him as did Hezbollah who probably turned teh war against Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, Isis and all the rest of them.

Some forces were angry that Russia managed to stop the plan and now we have a conflict for Russia on its doorstep in Ukraine.

The Saudis are unlikely to really sort Isis out because Isis is a Sunni Jihadi bunch of mercenaries who mainly attack Shia Muslim areas.

The Saudis have not committed ground troops to defeat the Isis Jihadi mercenaries, Al Nusra, Al qaeda and all the rest of them, but we hear that they may be about to send ground troops into Yemen to stop the Shia Houthi uprising

"As Saudi Arabia began pounding the rebels with airstrikes, countries from the Middle East to Pakistan were said to be prepared to commit troops for a ground assault."

Time Magazine reported that there is a feeling in Iran that ISIS is a Western creation

time.com/3720081/isis-iran-us-creation/

The battle for resources and influence across the planet is heating up primarily due to teh disastrous financial banking system and the possible beginnings of teh end of dollar hegemony. If the dollar loses world reserve currency status, the impact on the US and the Western financial and banking system will be massive.

The rise of the BRICS bank as a challenger to the IMF means that countries will have a choice from whom to borrow.

The US wanted Britain not to join the Chinese led Asian Investment Bank but Britain was the first Western country that did and now others have followed and the US is joining it as well.

The financial system is in trouble. If there is a Western backed Maidan style coup in Russia or Russia is busted up and looted then the system will buy time and probably be saved.

But whatever happens, the world is likely to get more dangerous in the coming decade or possibly sooner as the financial system breaks apart and the BRICS bank poses a challenge to IMF, World Bank etc financial hegemony.

Hitchens asked teh question in his blog "do we actually have a policy in the Middle East?". He said

"The fact is, our policy is a nonsense."

But this isn't the case. The policy is difficult to understand because some of it sometimes seems contradictory, but it isn't really if what is really going on is considered.

Claig … Re western Middle East policy, of course it is confused, as how can western countries have consistent policies with Gulf regional countries when the Shia versus Sunni sectarianism is causing so much conflict WITHIN the individual countries e.g the Yemen, with a 60% Sunni 40% Shia division - INCREASING the regional Saudi Arabia (Sunni) vs Iran (Shia) divide?

This all goes back to the 7th century on the death of the Prophet Muhammad, when the whole Islamic fundamentalists (Sunni) versus progressive (Shia) began, long before there was an America/CIA, or any other country in its present form like Russia.

Surely the current conflicts across the Gulf can be traced back to the 1979 Iran Islamic Revolution, where the Ayatollahs formed an Islamic Republic and launched a Shia islamist agenda.

So who is currently surrounded to the north (Iraq & Syria), east (Iran plus a conflicted Bahrain) and now south (Yemen) by hostile countries with sectarian governments/forces hostile to them, is it Saudi Arabia or Iran?

Shia Iran supports a minority Alawite (Shia) Assad Syria now; why do you STILL refuse to see what was happening in Syria to the largest Muslim sect by far, which is why Cameron asked permission of parliament to intervene, but was denied at the last moment when Miliband changed his mind?

Arab uprising: Country by country – Syria”*
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12482309
“The wave of popular unrest that swept the Arab world came late to Syria, but its once peaceful uprising has evolved into a brutal and increasingly sectarian armed conflict.”

Shia Iran & Syria both ‘invaded’ the Lebanon during their Christian/Sunni/Shia civil war that began in 1975 and lasted until 1990 one way or another, with Syria only leaving in 2005, while Shia Hezbollah supported by Iran, remains in power as a state within a state.

Shia Iran now has a foothold with a Shia Iraqi government, helping them fight ISIS when Iraq had more than enough Shia (and loyal Sunni) soldiers themselves, but how many neutral Sunni Iraqis will die at their hands, where will that alliance end up?

Shia Iran is causing major unrest in Sunni Bahrain, yet Bahrain was the most democratic country, yet the ‘complaint’ is always they are being kept back economically on religious grounds.

Shia Iran training and funding rebels in Yemen, is causing the present conflict.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3013804/Saudi-Arabia-sends-war-planes-Yemen-terrifying-clash-Iran-leaving-Middle-East-brink-catastrophe.html

And if you want further proof of WHO is the main Gulf state sponsoring aggressor in the name of religion;

• Who has or is close to a nuclear bomb, Iran or Saudi Arabia?

• Why does Shia Iran so anti Sunni elsewhere, manage to help with finance, tunnelling and missile technology and supply, the Sunni Islamists called Hamas against Israel?

So yes there are Sunni fundamentalist and nasty organisations like Hamas, ISIS, Al Qaeda and even Taliban islamists, often supported by the mainstream Sunni States like Saudi Arabia & Qatar, but how many of these organisations were founded or grew after 1979 when the Ayatollahs of Iran began ‘exporting’ Shia unrest, to other Middle East countries who see the Shia sect as heretics?

But ISIS, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, Boko Haram and all the rest of them have nothing to do with Shia Islam or Iran.

In fact Assad is fighting ISIS, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra and all the rest of them.

I don't want to sound pro-Iran here (I deplore their human rights stance) but faced with international hostility and in close proximity to hostile Sunni Countries I can understand why they are supporting Shia in other countries.

I'm maybe being a little bit thick but I don't understand why it's thought of as ok for Saudi who are funders and exporters of terror to be so involved in their neighbours politics eg Bahrain in 2011 but Iran are bad for doing the same.

Having said that I think they both need to be told in no uncertain terms we are not in the time of Saladin anymore

Claig .... re your "But ISIS, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, Boko Haram and all the rest of them have nothing to do with Shia Islam or Iran."

I did not say that, why don't you read the whole paragraph, as the part below covered the point I was making

"....many of these organisations were founded or grew after 1979 when the Ayatollahs of Iran began ‘exporting’ Shia unrest, to other Middle East countries."

Before 1979 the Sunni Muslims, far larger than the Shia in numbers, were seen as the dominant sect, in numbers and wealth, and Iran rightly or wrongly (as who am I to judge) has looked to change that.

Since the Saddam Iran-Iraq War, Iran has been on a military footing, getting DIRECTLY or indirectly involved in regional conflicts.

Yet how many wars have Saudi and Qatar been directly involved in, or indirectly, before the recent ISIS (looking to protect Sunnis in Iraq and Syria as the western powers gave up) and maybe Al Qaeda, as started by a Saudi national?

I reiterate a previous point, Saudi Arabia is now surrounded by Iranian influences, not the other way around, and hence Saudi seems to be strategically saying enough is enough, WE will get directly involved in the Yemen.

The Middle East 'good guys' (if they exist), based on the U.S. and UK parliamentary votes, can no longer count on the west to help against 'the bad guys' - especially as the U.S. is already nearly pumping as much oil out of the ground per day as Saudi Arabia, ad will soon be a net EXPORTER of carbon based fuels.