Since Trump took over at the Oval Office in 2017, he has never once taken the US to war.

I assure you that many from the Muslim community will not be shedding many tears at the prospect of a defeat for Donald Trump as the President of the United States. In fact, many will be quite ecstatic that Biden has defeated Trump. However, let me tell you – it will be a sad day for the Muslim community worldwide because we quite honestly do not know the truth.

There is a saying that goes — Judge the character of a man by his actions and not by his words.

Trump certainly talked the talk, but did he honestly walk the walk?

The Analysis

George Bush took the US to war in Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), NW Pakistan (2004), Somalia (2007) and Kenya (2007).

The man of ‘change’, Barack Obama, changed nothing and took the US to war in the Indian Ocean against Somali Pirates (2009), Libya (2011), Uganda (2011), Iraq and Syria (2014), Yemen (2015) and Libya again in 2015 to fight ISIS.

Since Trump took over at the Oval Office in 2017, he has never once taken the US to war.

I repeat – he never once took the US to war.

In fact, let’s be honest, especially if we want to talk facts – most US wars since 2001 have been fought in Muslim lands at the expense of millions of Muslim lives. This only substantially changed when Trump took office. In fact, the truth is even better – Trump withdrew forces from Syria, and Iraq, and moreover he negotiated a peace treaty with the Taliban after years of war in Afghanistan.

Trump has been better in his dealings with the Uighur Muslim issue with China, than even most so-called Muslim leaders. Not content with condemning China’s Uighur concentration camps, he even imposed sanctions on Chinese companies and officials for their human rights abuses against Uighur Muslims.

Trump also termed Burma’s genocide and expulsion of the Rohingya Muslims as ‘ethnic cleansing’ and imposed sanctions on some of the alleged perpetrators.

In 2016, the US under Obama, supported a coup and attempted murder of the world’s best Muslim leader, President Erdogan of Turkey.

Videos have emerged which show Biden’s willingness to support the ‘opposition leadership’ in the removal of Erdogan, when he become the next president.

Even the issue of ‘Islamist’ Terrorism has improved under Trump. During Barack Obama’s presidency, no fewer than 11 ‘so called’ terror attacks took place. All were full-on, mainstream media hyped, ‘Islamist’ inspired terror. However, these types of terror attacks virtually disappeared during Trump’s presidency.

The counter argument

Trump was certainly no angel and he had his faults. The fundamental chink in his armour, from Muslims’ point of view, has always been his unwavering support for Israel. However, the reality is as clear as night and day, which is that, no US President would be an unbiased arbiter in dealing with the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Hence, in reality, this can be discounted in the overall balance of arguments.

The ‘Muslim ban’, the ‘Wall’, the tweets and various other nonsense were no more than bravado from an eccentric, full on, showman that Trump clearly is.

The Reason

Trump is the maverick, loose cannon which the mainstream media, the American Establishment and the banking cartels never wanted. They wanted their usual puppets like Clinton, Obama, Bush and now Biden, to further their own interests.

Trump did what he wanted, when he wanted and how he wanted. He was never going to dance to their bloodthirsty, Islam-bashing and world dominating tune. Hence, they vilified him in the mainstream media, changed election rules just prior to the election and put their full weight behind Biden to remove him at any cost.

The Analysis

As Muslims, there is nothing more sacred than the life of a Muslim. Hence, if the only measure of a US President was the loss of Muslim lives and the blood spilt during their presidency, then Trump wins hands down without even a recount.

The numbers of Muslim lives that have been lost during the Bush, Clinton and Obama presidency goes into the millions. The US have rampaged through Muslim lands during those few short years. However, that came to a very abrupt end when Trump became President.

I can honestly say, that I would be truly devastated if Trump loses – as it now seems inevitable. Only Trump could have done what he has done and it will be a sad day for the Muslims of the world.

The Conclusion

Let’s judge Trump by his actions and not by his words or even his tweets. Because if you do, then there is honestly only one conclusion which you can come to. That is, President Trump was good for Muslims the world over.

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

The US State Department released documents related to US foreign policy, including many related to the Middle East and North Africa.

Hillary Clinton’s e-mails for the era of Democrats headed by Barack Obama, reveal the confusion, the loss of an effective strategy, and the disastrous dimension caused by the Democrats’ policies through the project of (Creative Chaos) that caused destruction of large areas in the Middle East and North Africa.

Here, we publish some of the messages that were leaked regarding that dangerous period that witnessed the overthrow and destruction of some countries, as well as the emergence of terrorist organizations, which received wide political and economic support from the democratic administration, such as ISIS and the militias affiliated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, in addition to the expansion  Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah.

The Successful Saudi Model

The most striking was that includes the full realization that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is stable, prosperous and fully developed without adopting western liberal approach such as democracy, and it seems certainly that this is what infuriates the elite of the ideology of the liberal left trend.

Addressed to Clinton from the former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Charles Freeman (1989-1992), a letter to Hillary in 2001, explains the difficulty of obtaining satisfactory results in Saudi Arabia by adopting the tactics of change and influence used in the so-called Arab Spring (Creative Chaos).

Clear Understanding

Ambassador expresses: … the only society in this world that has not been penetrated by Western colonialism. No European armies have penetrated its borders, neither missionaries nor merchants.  Its capital, Riyadh, was out of reach of the infidels. The holy cities of Makkah and Medinah remain so today.

The Saudis have been Prepared

When the Westerners finally came to Saudi Arabia, they did not come as defenders of supposed Western cultural supremacy, but as a hired aid. 

He explains that the Kingdom has stood far from global standards (Western liberal approach), as its system of government is based on tribal and Islamic traditions rather than Western models.  

Adding: The king heads the royal family and Saudi society, but  he does not rule them (The Saudi King rules through mutual understanding with the Saudis). The king’s responsibility is not so much to make decisions as it is to form and declare consensus, while ensuring a share of the national wealth for all, especially the less fortunate.  

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not impose taxes on its citizens, except for the religious tithes known as “zakat” – an annual donation of private capital of two and a half percent for charitable and other public purposes.

The Saudi Approach is Competitive

As as we can understand, Freeman to Clinton in this document, highlights his awareness of the high viability of the Saudi monarchy, which is based on Islamic laws, where all Saudis enjoy free education, free medical care from birth to death, and they can also pursue these services at home or abroad as they like.

The former American ambassador explains the merit of the advanced alternative represented by the nature of the Saudi system in competing with the ruling systems of different ideologies globally, especially democracy, saying:The Kingdom does not have a parliament, although it has informal mechanisms to consult with its citizens on political issues.  He affirmed that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has definitely upended a basic principle of American political philosophy.  “No representation without taxes.”

The Entrenchment of Saudi Society

He continues: Despite the rapid development, the strong family structure that characterized the traditional Saudi society has remained largely the same.  It’s really moving to see how children and grandchildren care for the elderly in the Kingdom.  This is reflected in the fact that almost none of its citizens have emigrated, although many of them have second homes abroad, and some, such as Osama bin Laden, have been exiled, due to deviant behavior.  For a long time, it was easier for journalists and academics to obtain a Tibetan visa than Saudi Arabia.

Development and Donation

Charles Freeman establishes the effective value of the Saudi monarchy, saying: Unlike some countries … Saudi Arabia has invested its oil wealth at home, not abroad, even though it has long been generous in foreign aid.  (At one point it was donating 6% of the GDP to others, mostly Muslim countries)

He adds that extreme poverty in the pre-oil period is now, at most, a grim memory.  Over the life of elderly Saudis, per capita income in the kingdom has increased by nearly 100%, and mud-walled villages of sparsely populated population have grown into mega-cities adapted to the architecture of the 21 century.

Effective Education System

Freeman draws attention to a fundamental point of this paradox: Saudis today are not only educated, but many of them have university degrees.  There are more US PhD.’s in the Saudi Cabinet than there are in the Cabinet and Congress combined in the United States.

Article first published on The Herald Report.

Turkey Al-Owerde is Editor-in-Chief and Political Analyst of the Herald Report. His knowledge of the religious undertones of most Muslim Terrorist Organizations makes his many “conflict analysis” a valuable source of information for many security experts from around the world. He tweets under @Turki_AlOwerde.

Michael Arizanti

Obama-era mistakes will only compound the difficulties the region already faces.

Middle East policy has shifted up the U.S. Presidential Election agenda ahead of Novembers ballot, thanks in large part to the remarkable normalisation deals between Israel, the UAE and Bahrain. At the start of the year, following the Soleimani assassination, it seemed likely to be high on the agenda, before the pandemic took over all our lives. It belongs firmly in the debate, as America’s actions have major consequences in the Middle East, and under Obama those were largely negative.

Beneath all the bluster and rhetoric, is there actually a considerable amount of difference between the two candidates. It’s true that there would be obvious differences under Biden, not least in seeking a return to the Iran deal in some form, although hopefully he will avoid repeated the error of shunning input from the region’s powers. But the notion that we might see a wide-reaching return to Obama-era accommodation with Islamist forces in the Middle East is far less plausible. Quite simply, the sands have shifted.

It is perhaps the most fatal flaw in President Obama’s approach to the Middle East that he sought to build relations with Islamist groups, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood. His description of them as ‘an unsavoury but inevitable by-product of democracy’ was a basic failure to understand an organisation that views the creation of an Islamic caliphate intolerant of non-believers as it’s raison d’etre.

This shift in approach not only enabled a destabilising, hard-line organisation but simultaneously saw a cooler approach to America’s traditional allies in the region. Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and others all increasingly saw their advice as states on the frontline of regional problems fall on deaf ears. The consequence was greater regional instability, greater resource for violent proxies and an emboldening of Islamist forces manifesting themselves in Turkey, Lebanon, Syria and beyond.

Despite this bleaker picture, the past four years (and indeed the past two months), we have seen an historic realignment in the Middle East. Recent peace deals between Arab nations and Israel are no PR stunt; they are a formal recognition of shared core interests and a realisation of longstanding cooperation in combating extremism across the region. Israel along with its partners in the Gulf – all of them US allies – now form a bulwark against the Islamist ideology that the last administration turned a blind eye too.

Turkey, meanwhile, has emerged as the preeminent author of instability in the region. President Erdogan’s aggressive foreign policy in Libya, Syria and in the Eastern Mediterranean pits it against US allies across the board. Countering his neo-Ottoman ambitions and the Muslim Brotherhood-aligned ideology he propagates is a key challenge for the next president.

In order to meet that challenge, both candidates must recognise how this situation arose in the first place. Obama-era mistakes will only compound the difficulties the region already faces. America is undoubtedly seeking to pull back from the region in a military sense. However, recent weeks have shown the positive diplomatic impact the U.S. can have in terms of building alliances, improving stability and challenging the forces of divisive Islamism.

Whoever sits in the Oval Office in January should view promoting the growing unity among the United States’ allies as a priority, listen to their allies and reject Islamist thinking. Winding back the clock is not an option.

Article first published on Times Of Israel’s Blog section.

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

The peace agreements between Israel and other Arab and Muslim states can address some of the economic and political concerns which made Russia and China’s influence seemingly unavoidable.

The uprisings (The Arab spring) that erupted in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) in 2011during the era of former President Barack Obama created a power vacuum in MENA due to President. Obama’s choice to signal the U.S  resources and commitments away from the region. Moreover, Obama’s 2015 decision not to intervene in Syria was the official American strategic disengagement from the Middle East. As a result, Moscow starts its campaign for intervention in Syria in 2015.

Moreover, Obama’s era extended the disengagement of the U.S into a global withdrawal, which contributed to the weakening of the international order created at the end of the Cold War. The depreciation of the western impact led by the United States opened the door for China and Russia to compete in MENA and global affairs.

In 2018, President Donald Trump backed a plan to offer a Middle East Security Alliance (MESA) or Arab NATO to stand against the growing influence of Iran in the Middle East. However, from day one, it was rife with controversy over various issues, starting with membership – and at the time, Israel was not yet openly considered. The Israel-UAE normalization agreement is changing the scenario that once did no foreseen vital for MENA; Israel becomes an ally with the potential for more Arab States to join peace proposal with Israel and revive the MESA project. MENA countries must realize that Iran is not the only threat they are facing; Russia and China are becoming a major key player in the area and set to take the place of the United States as the dominant power.

China will object MESA (a formal decree of alliances) because China’s ambition to expand its influence in MENA is driven from the necessity to sustain its economic growth through building economic ties to support China’s efforts to achieve energy security. Furthermore, the Chinese goal is to foster a world driven by the bilateral relations of states, which creates advantages to sustain a broader economy and populous power without the need for formal allies.  

Russia’s MENA policy is slightly different than China’s policy in MENA. Besides the direct intervention in Syria, Russia incorporates a nonintervention policy that is attractive to the region’s autocratic regimes and opposes the Western-style liberal democracy. The Russian approach is a de-ideologies approach that reflects on Islamic interest. It uses assistance in long-term loans in the construction of nuclear power plants as well as arms supplies.

Russia has claimed that its military campaign in Syria is a self-protective strategy against the expansion of radical Islamism as well as a catalyst for a future solution to the conflicts in the Middle East. In reality, however, the strategy was aimed at securing naval bases in strategic locations, positioning Russia as a critical power broker, and forcing the remnants of American influence out of the region. Russia’s presence in Syria made Israel’s life more difficult because Israel has to consider the Russian factor while responding to the Iranian threats in Syria. Russia’s flip-flap policy working with Assad and pro-Iran proxies on the one hand, and cut deals with Turkey, on the other hand, created radical militias that fell under Erdogan’s influence and established an organized presence in Syria. Russia’s airstrikes have ended up targeting U.S. allies in the region and resulted in an avoidable mass civilian casualty. Russia’s presence in the Middle East has been less beneficial than it was unavoidable.

The Israel-UAE normalization agreement will encourage the proposed MESA partners, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain, along with other MENA countries, to reconsider the proposal seriously rather than stays distracted by differences and short-term goals that are limiting their strategic interests and global security. The latest normalization agreement declared Israel’s military and economic position, which will open the doors for a MENA alliance (not an ARAB NATO), a military, security, and economic alliance.

In reality, Russia is also an economic competitor to Saudi Arabia in regards to oil and Qatar over LNG. Losing the oil war to the Saudis in the first quarter of 2020 was a stumbling block for that competition; moreover, Russian propagandists have been increasingly siding with the Houthis in Yemen and using active measures to sow discord between Saudi Arabia and Jewish and pro-Israel activists on social media. Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Bahrain do not perceive Russia and China as mere trade partners, especially after their role in siding with Iran at the U.N. Security Council to prevent the extension of the Iran arms embargo. 

Furthermore, Russia preferred to lose a far more lucrative trade with the United States over pushing the sale of its untested S-400 defense system to regional powers in a risky proposition for most states, a step that may not ultimately live up to its reputation. For Israel, dealing with Russia is a matter of maneuvering, erasing the edges, and deconflicting wherever possible; Russia’s small GDP makes it a limited trading partner. Individual deals with oligarchs may be of interested to various private parties but are not a substitute for a formal relationship.

China has been entering the Middle Eastern markets slower that Russia, primarily due to the fraught with the radicalization nature of the area that is associated with political risk and problems. Being a top oil trading partner for Iran and helping Tehran evading sanctions in various ways makes Beijing inherently suspect in the eyes of the Middle Easterners; its recent willingness to allow its companies to utilize Al Jazeera propagandists in their ads was also an economic turn-off. 

Beijing’s most significant value came as a threat of a deterrent by Saudi Arabia and others aimed mostly at U.S. Democrats and vociferous critics of U.S. defense relationships with the Gulf States; big markets made the country potentially desirable as a trading partner. However, on a strategic level and without considering the head of media-advanced narratives about the future of the relationships between Arab states and democracies, China’s self-serving, vicious economic and political position is becoming a turn off even for the countries once dependent on its largesse, including Sri Lanka, and various African states.

Beijing’s unwillingness to employ locals in the countries where it operates, a reputation for the low quality of its finished products and investment overextension that has led to its inability to support its signature project, the “New Silk Road” or the Bridge and Road Initiative (BRI) are red flags against long-term engagements. While Israelis have been willing to overlook China’s propaganda efforts and willingness to employ traditional totalitarian tactics abroad as much as at home, the growing Cold War between the United States and China has forced a reevaluation of contemplated national deals, such as the sale of a port which would have advanced Beijing’s maritime plan a step further.  

The peace agreements between Israel and other Arab and Muslim states can address some of the economic and political concerns which made Russia and China’s influence seemingly unavoidable. Israel could be another bridge to a stronger relationship with the United States; furthermore, its leadership in innovation can make Russia’s and China’s roles increasingly superfluous. Of course, not to ignore Israel’s leading role in advanced weapons and various forms of defense systems, which can serve as a preferable alternative to Russian and Chinese offerings even in the event the defense relationships with the U.S. go sour.

At the end of the day, as countries are increasingly forced to choose sides in the new Cold War, Israel’s peacebuilding in MENA can help the United States advance its goals in limiting Russian and Chinese influence because when push comes to shove, Israel will choose its friendship with the United States over its pragmatic relations with China.

Irina Tsukerman is a Human Rights and National Security Attorney based in New York. She has written extensively on geopolitics and US foreign policy for a variety of American, Israeli, and other international publications. She can be followed under @irinatsukerman.

Dr. Frank Musmar is an expert on the Middle East Politics, a Non-resident research associate at BESA Center and an Advisory Board Member at the University of Maryland Global Campus (UMGC).  

Do Norwegian politicians have a sense of humor after all? Or are they being deliberately provocative by nominating President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize in the middle of the biggest campaign of character assassination faced by any Western politician in recent times?

At first glance, Trump may actually have a claim to the dynamite-maker’s prize. He has brokered normalization between Israel and two of its erstwhile Arab enemies, with more expected to follow. He may have also cleared the last foyer of conflict in former Yugoslavia by mediating a settlement between Serbia and Kosovo.

In both cases he has managed to jump historic, emotional and ideological hurdles that many, including this writer, believed could not be crossed in the foreseeable future. How he did it and what underhand measures he employed to clinch the deals is a matter for speculation. But what matters, as far as the Nobel judges are concerned, is that he did it; he brought peace where there was conflict.

Trump the peacemaker? The liberal elites on both sides of the Atlantic react to that phrase with a hearty “Ha! Ha! Ha!” or an angry cry of “scandal”.

But, wait a minute, a closer look may tell a different story. First, with the exception of Dwight Eisenhower, Trump is the only US president since World War II not to have led his nation into a war, big or small.

President Harry Truman took America into the Korean War. John F. Kennedy got the US involved in the Vietnam War. His successor Lyndon Johnson extended the war into Laos. Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford prolonged the war and extended it into Cambodia. Ronald Reagan had his mini-war in Grenada plus proxy wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua while also helping British allies in the Falklands conflict.

George H. W. Bush led the invasion of Iraq plus a mini but costly incursion in Somalia. Bill Clinton dragged the US into the Yugoslav conflict. George W. Bush drew a double by invading first Afghanistan and then Iraq. Leading from behind, Barack Obama got the US involved in the Libyan war while starting the largest drone war in history in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. He also incited the Arabs to rebellion against their governments but then refused to raise a finger to help them, thus lighting the fire of civil wars, notably in Syria. His support for the mullahs of Tehran also encouraged them to speed up their empire-building efforts, plunging much of the Middle East into violence and war.

In contrast, Trump the dealmaker, ignoring hawkish advisers, refused to take military action against North Korea. He even accepted to demean himself in the eyes of many by treating the North Korean despot Kim Jung-un with decorum. Trump also pulled the plug on a series of planned airstrikes against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Last but not least, Trump tried to broker a deal with the Afghan Taliban.

One may or may not approve of those acts, and in some cases, notably legitimizing the Taliban, one may even have a sense of betrayal. But, as far as Nobel judges are concerned, all those acts were aimed at making peace.

I doubt that, in the end, the liberal elites in control of the Nobel game will go for Trump. But if they do, he will be the fifth US president to gain the accolade. And if he does, he would be the most deserving of them all.

The first to win the Nobel was Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, for mediating a ceasefire in the Russo-Japanese war, which Russia had lost. The mediation did not remove the core of the conflict over the Sea of Okhotsk, with Russia recovering its losses in World War II and annexing the Japanese Kuril archipelago. Roosevelt, endearingly known as “Teddy”, was far from a “peace and love” icon. He waged war to complete the conquest of the Philippines and campaigned for joining the First World War. Worse still, the dear “Teddy” was a promoter of eugenics, ordering that “criminals should be sterilized and mentally retarded be forbidden to have descendants.”

The second of the four was President Woodrow Wilson, in 1919. Hailed for his “liberal internationalism,” Wilson had led the US into World War I, at the end of which he published a 14-point declaration promising self-determination to numerous “nations” and proto-nations in Europe and the Middle East. Britain and France ignored the declaration and went on to expand their empires with a series of treaties from Versailles to Lausanne and Montreux.

During his presidency, Wilson the peace laureate had led several wars, notably an invasion of Mexico to seize Vera Cruz and destabilize the despot Victoriano Huerta in favor of the “liberal” Venustiano Carranza. Wilson’s Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan talked a good talk for liberal elites but achieved little. Had he been around today, Wilson’s thinly disguised racism alone would have disqualified him.

The third Nobel laureate was Jimmy Carter for “his decades of untiring efforts to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts and advance democracy.” Since Carter was president only for four years, it is not clear where those “decades of efforts” came from. In any case, by arming, training and financing the first Mujahedin, Carter started a war that is still going on in Afghanistan. Carter’s Keystone Cops-style mini-invasion of Iran to release US hostages showed that was not shy about using force; he just didn’t know how to do it.

The fourth Nobel winner was Barack Obama, who was chosen even before he had become president. His case illustrated what in 1817 Coleridge called “a suspension of disbelief” with Nobel judges deciding to honor Obama for what he might do in the future. That Obama did not turn out to be the champion, of “make love, not war,” as Nobel judges had expected, is beside the point. His fans like him because he talked their talk without walking the walk.

Trump’s message of “make deals, not war” isn’t intellectually sexy enough for the liberal elites who set the norm for Nobel-style gimmicks. He may yet win the Nobel, but don’t hold your breath.

Article first published on GateStone Institute International Policy Council.

Amir Taheri was the executive editor-in-chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran from 1972 to 1979. He has worked at or written for innumerable publications, published eleven books, and has been a columnist for Asharq Al-Awsat since 1987. He is the Chairman of Gatestone Europe.

Jordanian professor Ahmad Nofal said on Muslim Brotherhood’s Yarmouk TV show on Friday, that “If we liberate Palestine tomorrow, will we leave Jewish synagogues intact?” Then he exclaimed, “No! we will uproot them, along with their people (Jews), and throw them into the sea”.

Professor Nofal is infamous for his inflammatory speeches against the Jewish community. He even claimed that founder of the modern Turkey Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was a Greek Dönmeh Jew, and he was not even a Turk.

“Hagia Sophia had been a mosque for 500 years, until the collaborator (Ataturk) turned it into a museum. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk had been a Dönmeh Jew from Greece. He wasn’t even a Turk”, he said. “He was a Greek who lived in the Jewish Quarter in Istanbul”.

He made the speech in Arabic for the TV audience, which was later translated in English by The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

Muslim Brotherhood is an extremist group founded in Egypt in 1928. The key-backers of the group are Qatar and Turkey, however, as of 2015 the group was declared as a terrorist organization by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Russia, and Bahrain. The group’s literature designed by Syed Qutb and Hassan al-Banna is referred as the foundational work for terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

Saudi’s intervention in Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain followed to further teach Obama that his “democratization efforts” are but a mirror which Saudi shattered.

The year was 2012 while the oil market was booming, the selling price reached around $100 per barrel by the end of the year. All oil producing nations including Iran and Turkey were the happiest, given that such a high price guaranteed returned profits, due to the high cost of production in these nations.

Furthermore, Iran’s influence and control in Iraq borders an occupation, during which they drained Iraq’s oil and filled their own coffers. One might argue, it’s a far fetched claim. However, such claim is supported by many examples, starting by the control of Iraqi oil fields by Iranian contractors, Iran’s theft of water through terraforming, Iran’s many radical militants which roam in Iraq unchallenged, even by the Iraqi army.

This surplus of oil wealth means more funds for Iran’s expansionist agenda, and the honey moon which they experienced with the U.S. through the Iranian nuclear deal, was an opportunity they were willing to take full advantage of.

Around 2013, Assad and his Iranian pals in death and blood lust felt confident enough to massacre the people of Ghouta in what came to be known as the “Ghouta massacre.” In this horrific war crime, Assad used chemical weapons (internationally prohibited weapons) in which 1,400 civilians were killed, most of them were children.

Saudi Arabia protested and protested, applied political pressure on the United Nations and the super powers (America and Russia). It called for an emergency meeting in the security council and called for an intervention to stop the inhuman killing of innocent people and children. The answer from Russia was a VETO in support of Assad, while the incompetent ally represented by the democratic party, which controlled the white house during Obama’s presidency was bitter and cold towards Saudi’s request.

Meanwhile Obama was busy celebrating the new “Shattering record” of U.S. oil production, which reached ten million barrels. In this time, when it seemed all was lost for the Kingdom, while Iran was only getting more territory and gaining more strongholds around Saudi. Their leaders were confident enough to boost and brag about controlling four Arab capitals, adding San’a through their Houthi puppets in Yemen.

Saudi Arabia understood the significance of Obama’s inaction, and fully grasped that it was an action in it self. Saudi’s bargaining chip (Oil) does no longer affect the U.S. which is not only becoming self-sufficient to satisfy internal oil consumption needs, but now has established a foothold in the oil market.

Furthermore, those “red lines” which Obama keeps drawing for Russia, only to redraw it again, are merely political tactics to buy more time until Saudi is fully stripped of the only powerful tool it could use to pressure the U.S. and Russia. Obama was saying to Saudi “We do not need you anymore” the message was loud and clear.

Overnight, Saudi Arabia flooded the market with oil. Obama woke up from his short lived dream, and the world saw a price inversion for the oil barrel, plummeting from the $100 mark to $35. Which is less than the cost of American shale oil production.

The Kingdom maintained this price for three consecutive years in which it depleted Iran’s coffers, further gained 25% shares of the world oil market and pushed many American refiners to go under. Yet the coldest slap of them all, Saudi Aramco was the highest bidder which ended up taking over two refiners in the U.S. in Texas and Alaska. Ouch Obama.

As for Iran, this drop in Oil price marked the end of its rampage in the Middle east. They have money to support their terrorist puppets the most important tools for implementing their expansionist project, which happened to be aligned with what they call the “Arab Spring” a cover name for an evil project, which aims to further destabilize, and divide and pave the way for Zionism to continue its project.

Saudi’s intervention in Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain followed to further teach Obama that his “democratization efforts” are but a mirror which Saudi shattered.

Supporting economic stabilization efforts, unifying instead of dividing, supporting prosperity and political stability in the Muslim and Arab world; that is Saudi’s agenda which will surely kill the western efforts to further control the region.

American oil companies stopped producing, those who refused to sell went under, those who sold had to shrink and those who refused to shrink went into debt. The U.S. economy faced a serious threat of stagnation the blame game started to take full effect in the American political discourse.

The sheer failure of Obama’s foreign policy, his inconsistency in conduct and the many red lines which were walked all over was a humiliation not only for Obama, but for the larger American community. The lose of jobs in the oil sector in the U.S. prompted desperate moves from the U.S. represented in the “JASTA” bill, aimed against Saudi Arabia.

The U.S. politicians which politicians attempt with the JASTA bill was met with crushing defeat when Saudi threatened to dump the dollar if such law went into effect, furthermore it invited Russians and Chinese officials to discuss future evaluations to include their currencies if the Petrodollar pact was threatened.

Moreover, in international relations, the rule of reciprocity will expose the U.S. government to be sued in case Obama allowed such a bill to pass. Which he immediately vetoed. Obama decided to face the facts, oil Saudi Arabia’s territory, and the slaps he received was warranted, it was only better to pay a visit to Riyadh attempting to save what’s left.

However, he arrived to no reception, and he was escorted to the King’s farm. This permanent mark on the cheek of Obama is fit to be dubbed “The imprint of political tampering with Saudi Arabia” and I fear that Putin will receive a similar one in days to come!

Assem Alzahrani is an independent Political commentator from Saudi Arabia. He writes for Millichronicle.

The entire border to Turkey was controlled by ISIS

Brett McGurk Former US Envoy to the International Coalition to fight ISIS speaking at a political seminar attended by “Riyadh Today“, about Obama’s mistake. So Yousuf Al-Qardawi used Al-Jazeera to call for fight in Syria, terrorists infiltrated from Turkey.

Erdogan exploited the chaos, attacked the Kurds and occupied northern Syria.

Following is the excerpt of McGurk’s speech:

“You had people like Yousuf Qardawi speaking to sixty million Muslims from on al Jazeera once a week saying you have religious duty to pour into Syria.

And I think where Bill and I would agree is the United States needs to be very careful presidents need to be very careful before they set national security objectives.

And when you say in 2011 Assad must go that changes everyone’s calculation and it created like a fever in the region and the amount of foreign jihadis and fighters pouring into Syria and the amount of weapons the amount of money and everything else led to a lot of this.

The way we met the Syrian Kurds was in the Battle of Kobani, the entire border to Turkey was controlled by ISIS if you look at a map in those days it’s all black a little teeny dot in Kobani and Kobani is surrounded by—like thousands of ISIS fighters are about to take the town.

I’ll remember this in the fall of 2014, it was our relationships with the Iraqi Kurds who called us up and one of them called me up and called some of our military people up and said—‘hey we know some of the fighters who are holding out in Kobani there’s not many of them left they’re surrounded they’re about to get overrun but we’re in touch with them would you like to be in touch with them.’ So yeah you’re damn right we want to try to defeat ISIS.

The fighters in Kobani told us they need an airdrop of some weapons and I needed some air support and I still didn’t think they could hold out but we organized this through northern Iraq. We did the airdrop of weapons which had to go all the way to President Obama and that was most interesting about this is—General Allen and I kind of organized the Kobani effort in Turkey.

Because at that time the broader PKK Turkey conflict was in a what the Turks call the solution process, it was in a process of talks and the Turks kind of knew the YPG leaders and the leaders of Political umbrella the PYD were in Accra.”

Transcript taken from Riyadh Today’s video.