The joyous news was announced on Saturday, marking a celebratory occasion for the Al Maktoum family and the people of the UAE. Sheikh Hamdan, widely known as “Fazza,” shared the happiness with his followers and well-wishers as messages of congratulations poured in from across the region and beyond.

In Arabic, the name “Hind” (هند) holds deep cultural significance. It traditionally refers to the Indian subcontinent, but it also carries the meaning of “doe” or “female deer,” symbolizing grace and beauty. The name has been historically significant in the Arab world, often associated with nobility and strength.

Sheikh Hamdan, known for his deep connection with the people of Dubai and his passion for adventure, poetry, and philanthropy, continues to be one of the most admired leaders of the younger generation in the Middle East. The birth of his daughter adds another moment of pride and joy for the royal family.

The people of the UAE have taken to social media to express their heartfelt congratulations, with many praising the choice of the name and celebrating the expansion of the royal lineage.

This marks another milestone in Sheikh Hamdan’s life, as he and his family embrace the blessings of parenthood. The UAE leadership and citizens are joining in the celebration, wishing good health and happiness to the newborn and her parents.

Speaking to The National, Pahlavi exposed the Mullah regime’s shady politics of war, and he called on the armed forces to help the people stop a march to the war.

“This regime wants war, especially now that they are weakened and are cornered,” he said.

“They will use any excuse to start a war to maintain their power,” he added.

Pahlavi appealed the Iranians that, “The regime will not achieve their objective if the people of Iran stand up and refuse to participate. My compatriots in the armed forces must realise that the regime is using them, not to defend our country as a military should, but to defend the regime and its wealth and its power. Therefore, the impetus is on the people to deny the regime the support it seeks in this manufactured conflict.”

“War is the worst scenario, which is why the regime wants it,” he said.

“The regime does not care who lives or dies, they do not care if our nation and people are devastated. That is why we will remove them,” he added.

Pahlavi is based in Washington and works as an activist for democratic reform in Iran. Despite being in exile, for almost four decades, Pahlavi has been a leader and advocate of the principles of freedom, democracy and human rights for Iranians.  

When the Saudi Minister of Foreign Affairs Adel al-Jubeir announced that the kingdom was holding to account those responsible for Jamal Khashoggi’s death, the US State Department announced that the first charges made in the Saudi investigation were a “good first step” in the “right way.”

Also, the State Department on Saturday said the United States government has not made a final conclusion on who was involved in the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

“Recent reports indicating that the US government has made a final conclusion are inaccurate,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said in a statement.

And US President Donald Trump said Saturday, that United States will make final conclusions by early next week over the killing of Jamal Khashoggi.

“The Saudi point of view was very clear that its legal system would take care of the prosecution and punishment of Khashoggi’s killers,” Dr. Theodore Karasik, a senior advisor to the Gulf State Analytics in Washington told Al Arabiya English, emphasizing that the US Treasury’s sanctions against key individuals related to the Khashoggi case had been seen as a necessary and positive development to move this issue forward and stop both, the speculation and to stop what he described as “the info war.”

Karasik noted that the US decision was taken according to the Magnitsky Act, to address human rights abuses on a global scale. “Clearly, the treasury’s actions are a forward step in healing some of the political damage as a result of the Khashoggi’s case,” he reiterated.

Political Game

Would the international community be satisfied by Saudi Arabia’s action? American Media Institute CEO Richard Miniter had his doubts, “I am delighted that the killers will face justice and I doubt that even the terrible swift swords of the executioners will be dramatic enough to satisfy the American and European critics of the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman,” Miniter told Al Arabiya English.

Riyadh was not the only party that accused the Qatari media of launching, and exploiting the case of Khashoggi, and continuing to run an organized campaign against Saudi Arabia, Hudson Institute Senior Follow Lee Smith had the same views.

The Saudi “first step” was positively received by several Washingtonian political circles that were saying, from the beginning of the case, it was politicized by several regional players including the previous US administrations, “Former Obama aides and other echo chamber associates went into action. To punish Saudi, they named specific policies. In particular, they argued that the administration should withdraw support for Riyadh’s war against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen,” Smith wrote in an op-ed published by the Tablet Magazine last month.

The Gulf State Analytics senior advisor noted that those who wished to continue using Khashoggi’s affair, would resume their attacks against Saudi Arabia as a whole and the Crown Prince in particular. Jubeir’s reassurances that the Saudi government was committed to hold those involved in Khashoggi’s death accountable for their actions, sent a clear message, Karasik said, adding: “The decision said that the Saudi legal system was trying to transform and mature under the 2030 Vision. All aspects of society are in transformation, sometimes it would be good and sometimes it would be bad. The kingdom’s forward progress and the lessons that had been learned were the most important points in this case.”

On Friday night, the Washington Post published new accusations against the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, stating that a CIA anonymous source claimed that the Crown Prince had ordered the killing of Khashoggi, based on intercepted phone calls.

Saudi Ambassador to the US Prince Khalid bin Salman who denied these allegations described the Washington Post’s claim as “a serious accusation that should not be left to anonymous sources.”

Karasik commented on this statement by saying: “Now in the wake of the CIA findings, the Saudi Ambassador immediately made it clear that there was another version of events by taking the WP to task for such sharp accusations by relying on anonymous sources.”

“Anonymous sources are the fool’s gold of journalism. No one believes that unnamed sources of reporters any more–even when those sources are real,” American Media Institute CEO Richard Minister told Al Arabiya English.

As soon as the allegations were published, a debate had resurfaced in Washington, questioning the legality of leaking classified information and its effect on the US national security.

This came as prominent DC attorney Mark S. Zaid stressed, in a tweet, that in all cases, leaking “classified information is a very serious issue.

“Khashoggi’s killers must be brought to justice and hopefully truth publicly disclosed but I have serious issues with classified leaks of signals intercepts, especially if by senior officials,” that could lead “to jail” according to him.

Article first published on Al Arabiya English.

Dalia Aqidi is a news analyst and TV anchor based in the United States and a contributor to Al Arabiya English. Her twitter handle is @Dalia30

How can media accuse a stable government responsible for hosting millions of pilgrims across the globe based on the statements of “anonymous people” whose identity, truthfulness, integrity, and credibility is ambiguous?

America’s infamous WashingtonPost and other media units have published a brazenly dubious report on Friday stating “CIA concludes Saudi crown prince ordered Jamal Khashoggi’s assassination” while the Saudi Public Prosecution on Thursday called for death penalty against the five Khashoggi killers – which slammed all the open doors against the conspiracy theorists.

However, media do not seem to end the smearing campaign against the Saudi Arabia’s dynamic Crown Prince who is stuck in the throat of the Iranian expansionism project and the ISIS war-lords.

If you keenly read the crafty report, it deliberately tries to push the narrative that Crown Prince himself ordered the murder of WashingtonPost’s Op-ed columnist Jamal Khashoggi.

They claimed that, Saudi Ambassador to US – Khalid bin Salman – called Khashoggi from US to Turkey to inform him to visit Saudi consulate to collect his marriage related documents.

Is it plausible to believe that an “Ambassador” calls all the way from US to Turkey to tell “your documents are ready sir, you can go and collect.” Isn’t it a hilarious claim?

However, if you check the source of this claim, the article mentions “according to people familiar with the matter”, “who spoke on the condition of anonymity”, these claims baffle any rational reader. Why does free press have to narrate reports based on conditional anonymity? Had any state-controlled media made such claims, it would be a justifiable case.

Later the article speculates, why would Khalid call without being instructed by the Crown Prince, hence Crown Prince was involved, “according to the people familiar with the call”.

How can media accuse a stable government responsible for hosting millions of pilgrims across the globe based on the statements of “anonymous people” whose identity, truthfulness, integrity, and credibility is ambiguous? Or is it a well-planned and enough-funded smearing campaign against Saudi Arabia to create chaos, the way chaos was created in other Arab lands?

The article also adds the refutation made by spokeswoman for the Saudi Embassy in Washington – Fatimah Baeshan – “the ambassador and Khashoggi never discussed anything related to going to Turkey. The purported assessment is false. We have and continue to hear various theories without seeing the primary basis for these speculations.”

But the article outrightly ignored Khalid bin Salman’s clarification that he never persuaded Khashoggi to visit Saudi consulate in Turkey, and he spoke to him on 26 October 2017 last time.

On one hand Saudi Crown Prince is accused based on statements of ambiguous entities – “people familiar with the matter”, while the known and apparent entities have rejected the claims. Aren’t we supposed to accept apparent claims over the hidden and ambiguous claims?

It’s as clear as a day, the matter is being politicized in order to strain Saudi and American relations in order to create an international anti-Saudi opinion to hamper the ongoing liberation of Yemen by Saudi-led coalition forces to restore the legitimate Yemeni sovereignty.

Have we forgotten that the same media-trials caused Iraq’s destruction by claiming Weapons of Mass Destruction, but it turned out to be a century’s hoax.

Are we repeating the same pattern?

Zahack Tanvir is a regular blogger and holds diploma in Journalism from London School of Journalism. He tweets under @zahacktanvir.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect The Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

The 33-years-old Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman – also known as MBS – while speaking to Bloomberg said: “Saudi Arabia was there before the United States of America. It’s there since 1744, I believe more than 30 years before the United States of America.”

Further he commented: “And I believe, and I’m sorry if anyone misunderstands that, but I believe President Obama, in his eight years, he worked against many of our agenda – not in Saudi Arabia, but also in the Middle East.”

“And even though the US worked against our agenda we were able to protect our interests. And the end result is that we succeeded, and the United States of America under the leadership of President Obama failed, for example in Egypt,” he added.

“So Saudi Arabia needs something like around 2,000 years to maybe face some dangers. So I believe this is not accurate”, he said.

For the question, if the Crown Prince will take any aggravated reaction to Trump’s verbal attacks, he responded, “Well, you know, you have to accept that any friend will say good things and bad things. So you cannot have 100 percent friends saying good things about you, even in your family. You will have some misunderstandings. So we put that in that category.”

Critics of Crown Prince demanded him to behave swiftly against US similar to its actions against Canada and Germany, to which he replied: “Canada, they gave an order to Saudi Arabia on an internal issue. Trump is speaking to his own people inside the United States of America about an issue. And you’ve got the answer now from me.”

Crown Prince also responded to Trump’s allegation that Saudi Arabia has not paid enough for the American armaments.

“We believe that all the armaments we have from the Untied States of America are paid for, it’s not free armament”, he said.

“We’ve bought everything with money,” he added.

Trump bluntly attacked Saudi Arabia and OPEC “ripping off the rest of the world” with crude prices, which is currently going at $85 per barrel.

“We never in the history of Saudi Arabia decided that this is the right or wrong oil price. The oil price depends on trade – consumer and supplier – and they decide the oil price based on trade and supply and demand,” he explained.

Although Saudi Arabia’s ties with the U.S. have improved under Trump, the president’s latest remarks were unusually harsh and appeared to question the stability of a monarchy in power since the 1930s.