Send in the Clowns

Iran asked the Interpol to arrest Donald Trump at the backdrop of assassinating its top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani on January 3, 2002, insisting that he and his aides should face "murder and terrorism charges”.

Clearly, the Interpol burst into laughter.

Now Iran knew that its ridiculous request will be snubbed, but it pressed on with it nonetheless. The timing is perfect. As the USA is struggling with the corona-virus pandemic, dire economic conditions, and a national revolt over the murder of an African American is an act of pure racism, topped with recent news about Donald Trump’s prior knowledge of Russia’s paid hitmen to eliminate US fighters in Afghanistan, Trump is not in his strongest presidency moments. A news article that calls for arresting a president by the top international enforcement authority – albeit being purely a political stunt - will not fall on deaf US ears.

Trump’s bet that over 18 months of maximum pressure sanctions will make Iran crack was a miss. It is true that the oil sector has suffered from these sanctions, and hence the oil gifts sent to Venezuela, but other sectors are not suffering. They are in good conditions actually.  Data from the Statistical Center of Iran revealed that Iran’s manufacturing sector had returned to growth, expanding by 2.4% in the second quarter of 2019. The manufacturing sector, which employs just under one-third of Iran’s workforce of around 24 million people, has also helped keep Iran integrated into the global economy, even as sanctions isolated Iran from global oil markets.

Iran earned around USD 41 billion in non-oil export revenue from March 2019 to March 2020. The non-oil export revenue has bought time for Iranian policymakers to engineer a revamping of the country’s budgets and general economic structure to minimise dependence on oil revenue – a long-stated goal. The world is gearing towards green energy, and Iran is riding that tide. 

Meanwhile, Iran is also making full use of the regional mayhem to further pressure the US on the Lebanese and Syrian files, whilst watching – with much pleasure – how the Gulf economies are shrinking, and how Egypt is fighting neighbours to the west and the south.

In the end, the Trump administration underestimated the shrewdness of Tehran and its ability to reinvent itself and its discourse. If what it takes to rattle Trump is to play a joke on Interpol, then by all means, send in the clowns.

Slice it up already

“The fight isn't over until you win.”

― Robin Hobb, Royal Assassin

Indeed. However, in Libya, both sides believe they have won, and the fight is still not over. General Khalifa Hifter launched a military offensive against the Government of National Accord (GNA) in April 2019, employing the rhetoric of freedom and empowerment of the people against neo-imperialist interests invested in the incumbent government. Everyone understands the fallaciousness of these claims, and that the fight is only but one for the control of oil, considering that Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa. Its land has long become a battleground for proxy wars that stretch across the European, Asian and African continents, whilst the USA is observing with much weary as it sees Russian influence slowly, but surely, extending to the southern Mediterranean.

Meanwhile, the Libyans are still at war. Lives are lost, security is shattered, the economy is struggling, and the society is polarized.  

What is it that Hafter wants? And what is it that the GNA refuses to cede? The moment the GNA forces recaptured the entire city of Tripoli, oil production resumed in the Sharara oilfield in the south. When Turkey struck two major agreements with GNA in November 2019, the energy competition in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Libyan crisis entered new phases. The Libyan civil war can only be summed up as an international competition over oil reserves. Full stop. Not a war over security, or ideology, or democracy. It is about oil.

Libya’s state National Oil Corporation (NOC) recently announced that oil exports were down by 92.3 per cent since the country’s oil blockade. As a result, Libya’s cumulative losses from the current oil blockade have neared $5 billion. Such reporting is the norm when it comes to the civil war in Libya. Gains and losses are quantified, usually in oil terms. Little do we hear about the people, the environment, or the losses inflicted on the society.

International powers supporting either side are concerned for their own economic and geo-strategic interests. Whether it is to land cheap oil contracts, or allow maritime privileges, the forces backing Hafter and GNA are openly, blatantly, and sassily professing their ulterior goal.

The UN support mission in Libya said the fighting over Tripoli "has proven, beyond any doubt, that any war among Libyans is a losing war." It urged both sides to "engage swiftly and constructively" in UN-brokered talks aimed at reaching a lasting cease-fire agreement. How will that be possible if it is in no one’s interest to allow national conciliation?

The way things are going, it seems that only two solutions are possible: splitting the country in the middle, with Hafter controlling one part and the GNA the other, and subsequently slicing both parts up like one of these pizzas in which each slice has a different topping (analogy evident here). I was wrong; there is no second solution.

Comedian Bringing Down the Clown

Who would have believed that a comedian would govern an extremely strategic country that lies at the heart of Russian versus power struggle? Or that a bawdy, brainless, boorish man would run the strongest and most influential country in the world? Now, for the comedian to be the reason behind ending the clown’s tenure would be the joke of the decade.

On 4 October, Ukraine’s general prosecutor’s office announced that it will review past investigations into the owner of Burisma - a gas company linked to former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter-, raising the possibility of reopening the probes as per President Trump’s instructions.

Donald Trump had insisted repeatedly that his invitation to Ukraine to re-launch investigations had nothing to do with his political aspirations or cheap strategies to bring down an opponent, but rather a commitment to fight corruption committed by US nationals. Irrespective of whether an indictment would emerge, the investigations themselves are mired by unreliability and bias from the outset. If the Bidens were indicted, the entire world would support claims that Trump’s pressure was behind this. If they were declared innocent, the entire world would believe that the entire investigation was a farce that was launched to appease the US President. The only bet Trump has in this matter is that enough media controversy would be stirred that voters would subconsciously associate Biden with corruption – irrespective of the actual facts. This would certainly help the President in his re-election, or would it?

Even if the President were not impeached, and appeared victorious over Democratic villains, the average person would definitely ask the question of whether the Ukrainian President played the US President. In light of the heightened and tensed emotions, and the insistence of the US president that he did not pressure Ukraine to re-launch investigations, a smart and wise decision to help a ‘US friend’ would be to wait it out, let the media calm down, and launch investigations in silence. Instead, and in a very funny joke, the Ukrainian President escalated the issue, proving to the world that he was ‘pressured’ whilst also claiming his country’s right to purchase military equipment as promised in this ‘not-really-a-deal’. And oh yes, he would also look like a champion fighting financial crime. The US public would not take a liking to this, and would certainly reconsider voting for a President who was unable to manage a simple act of extortion.

It would be a very nice twist of fate if Ukraine were the reason to the ending of Trump. Perhaps we need more comedians in power to bring the world justice, with a nice heartfelt laugh.

Darling, We Need to Talk

Darling, we need to talk. Never a good sign, but at least it paves the way for an amicable, quasi-consensual agreement to part ways or to solve differences. Why can’t this approach be applied in politics?

Iran – AKA the root of all evil and malice according to a certain camp in the Middle East the Western world – has been fighting a proxy war in Yemen throughout the past decade or so. The alleged ultimate goal of Iranian intervention in Yemen and other neighbouring Arab states is to bolster Iranian hegemony in the region, and the easiest route to follow is to employ agents that abide by the same theological and ideological beliefs. The most sensible course encountered to fend off such expansionism is the coalescence of like-minded regimes that share common self-serving interests and the subsequent employment of religious rhetoric and exaggerated security threats.  

Since 2015, the Saudi-led military intervention in Yemen attempted – with the aide of loyal partners – to fight the Yemeni war on behalf of the Yemenis, or part of them. The supreme goal has been to defend the internationally recognised president of Yemen, Abd-Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, after his ousting by the Houthi movement. Albeit the ridiculously large number of partner countries that have partaken in the liberation fight, and the logistical, intelligence and material support provided by western nations, Yemen’s situation has not the least improved. In fact, Houthis have only been bolstered, their aerial attacks on Saudi targets have improved, and the Yemeni people have mastered the art of unjust and silent death. A catastrophe by all means is taking place before the world’s eyes, and for no good reason at all.

Fast forwarding four years ahead. In August 2019 two important things happen. The closest Saudi alley in the holy war in Yemen, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), initiated the withdrawal of its forces a few months earlier and – in a theatrical stunt – shifted sides and supported the separatist Southern Transitional Council fighting for control of the key southern city of Aden and its surrounding areas (Aden has been the temporary seat of Hadi's government since the Houthis seized Yemen's capital, Sanaa, in 2015). Not to be outdone, the USA also arranged for secret talks with Houthis in an attempt to reach an amicable agreement and end the war in what is left of the country. Both the UAE and the USA are trying to find a face-saving route to appease Iran and re-open dialogue – each for its own benefit.

What the UAE is trying to do is probably show off its political acumen and its sensible policies compared to its Saudi patron, mainly by trying to put an end to a seemingly endless war and to kill the groundless support to a president who just won’t nudge. The USA seems to be reversing its policies and reminiscing about the sensible Obama era.

The USA has proven repeatedly that it will not enter into a fully-fledged war with Iran. When rockets hit its Saudi ally it remained silent…when its surveillance air jet was shot down it remained silent…when the Iranian shipment of gas sailed freely and defied US orders for a seizure in the Mediterranean it also remained silent. No one has the time or stomach for war, especially with Iran. 

Meanwhile, the UAE –the Emirate of Dubai to be specific– received the message loud and clear. If you don’t back off, your ivory tower will crumble down. Too many Iranian investments and business deals are at stake, and the economy always, always, trumps political correctness. The UAE – fearing backlash and economic woos – decided to turn tables and seek a one-sided and sudden divorce from the coalition. So did the USA, albeit more discreetly.

Where does that leave everyone? It leaves them in the: let’s sit and talk dear phase.

Why has it taken leaders four years, hundreds of thousands of lives, millions of dollars, and endless heartbreaks to reach that decision is beyond comprehension.

Sadly, the Machiavellian theory still stands true. If you want to annihilate your enemy, make sure you kill him. If you can’t kill him – in my opinion – and you can't kill this one, then just talk to him. If that applies to your enemy, then it certainly should apply to your partner, no Abu Dhabi?

When a Picture Destroys a Thousand Deeds

A picture has been circulating on social media of Princess Haya bint Al Hussein with her brother Prince Ali bin Al Hussein. The siblings are the offspring of late King Hussein of Jordan, and their brother is King Abdullah of Jordan. Princess Haya is married to the Ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum – a prominent political and business figure.

Owing to marital disputes, the princess left the United Arab Emirates and sought refuge in the United Kingdom to initiate divorce procedures. Clearly, she would not have been able to launch such procedures in the UAE or in any other neighbouring Arab country, mainly owing to political pressures, bias towards male spouses in most Arab civil case-law, and lengthy, complicated, flexible, and opaque procedures. The decision to leave the oil rich Emirati nation was brave, intelligent, and reflective of a high level of determination, integrity and self-respect.

Nonetheless, that is what one expects of a princess. After all, she was raised by a King and a Queen, shared her childhood with fellow princes and princesses, received the best education, and was empowered through social and political links that have been fostered throughout the years. Her profile as a descendent of a royal family, an Olympics champion, wife of a political and business figure, extreme wealth, and a very active personality  that allowed her to spear national and regional social support programmes speak volumes for the strong, independent, and powerful woman she is.

This begs the following question: why did she allow such a picture with her sibling be circulated in the media? Why did she resort to playing on the sentimental – yet patriarchal – drive of Jordanians (and the Arab public in general) to win sympathy? Why does she need sympathy in the first place? Leaning on the shoulder of her brother for protection might have inspired a tender feeling of brotherly love and family protection – but it also entrenched an already deep-rooted conviction of the power and role played by male figures in Arab societies. The man is the protector…the defender…your shield from life….your strength.

I would understand the picture had it been the case of a battered, impoverished, and uneducated woman whose only consolation in life and source of security is the male figure who will protect her. However, a woman of her calibre, intelligence, resources and strength does not need that. In spite of the difficult psychological pain she must be going through, now is the opportunity to show her true colours and stand tall in proving to men what a true woman’s strength and wisdom are all about. Now is the time to pose with a strong and powerful smile. Now is the time to tell all unhappy and mistreated women, that no, it is possible to fight back -even if that means fighting one of the most powerful men across the globe.

I would have liked to see a picture of the princess basked in the love of her family - which we all need- brothers, sisters, aunts and friends included. I would have liked to see picture that exudes strength and victory and defiance to the tradition of female subjugation. I would have liked to see a rebellious princess that went all the way with her plan to show her true valour.

That picture might have softened hearts and spurred warm sentiments of brotherly and fatherly protection…but it also killed in one simple pose what many women – herself included – built throughout the years. Women can be - and are -  strong independent individuals. We can make it on our own, and we do not need a male figure to protect us.

A weak side might win her legal battle, but it would definitely mean that the bigger battle of changing convictions and leading change was lost with a snap.

Note: I am writing this post on the memory of late father’s birthday. Today we would have been eating cake and complaining about the heat. A Habjouqa tradition that never dies. I miss my father, who was a source of strength and still is – a type of strength that is based on believing in one’s self and one’s principles. Not the weak, dependent strength.

Belated Grief

It is virtually impossible to open a newspaper or read an online daily without coming across a headline that mourns – or announces – the death of the former Egyptian President Mohammad Morsi. Most headlines stated the obvious, leaving little room for interpretation. However, most headlines from Middle Eastern portals chose - as expected - a vaguer route, confusing the reader and leaving him/her to question the point behind the selection of the catchy titles. “The death of the only democratically elected President”… “after years of imprisonment Morsi meets his maker”…..”The death of a leader amidst a long trial”.

What do these titles mean? Is he being mourned? Are people upset that he died? Is the complaint about how he died? The timing? The place? The lack of action from authorities to respond to his health deterioration – as claimed by the Turkish authorities? What are we mourning here?

The fact is, Mohammad Morsi has been jailed for the past six years. He was no allowed media exposure, he was denied medical attention albeit his deteriorating health condition (a diabetic whose vision was being compromised), and who was simply selected a scapegoat for the geopolitical agenda amidst the stand off between Iran and Saudi Arabia, in which the terrorism card was deployed religiously in every argument made under the sun. People learned nothing from the 1950s, and a similar approach was being deployed yet again after over half a decade of time. Jailing and banishing people for simply not agreeing with the political discourse of a strong minority. 

What should have been lamented and mourned was not his death. It was these long years of unjust incarceration, the double standards applied in Egyptian politics, the mass hanging of young men who were misled into radicalism, the demonisation of an Islamic agenda, the blatant disregard to human rights, the systematic oblivion to the fact that an elected figure by a hopeful majority was imprisoned for simply belonging to a school of thought that has been dubbed ‘fundamentalist’...and to the loss of hope in decency and justice. 

What is shameful from all of that is the late remorse and sadness that hit as all. If his death serves any purpose, it is a wake up call to how powerless we are in an age of manipulation and self-imposed self involvement. Morsi's heart stopped pumping…just as our minds stopped thinking.

When Consensual Politics Fails

In theory, the Spanish electoral system is designed to introduce a consensual system of rule. Similar to its Europe peers, compromise and dialogue lie – again in theory – at the heart of doing politics. A disgruntled Britain has always frowned upon such suave tactics, promoting instead the traditional ‘win it gets it all’ type of system. A majority-one: I win, then you lose.

However, Spanish politics is not that consensual. It is not consensual at all actually. Since as democracy was restored in 1975, and the electoral system was defined, elections have persistently led to the rule of one of the two major parties. Never a consensual government composed of variations on the same left/right spectrum.

In the last general elections held in April 2019, the representatives of the main political parties did not even shy away from admitting this reality. The largest parties want to rule alone. No compromise, no coalitions, and no appeasement.  Although these elections were the first to see five parties major with national platforms competing in the election (rather than just the two largest national parties), one major party won, and one major party will form a government.

Three Spanish parties divided the vote on the right: the People’s Party (PP), previously in power, suffered the biggest loss; the centre-right Ciudadanos (Cs) gained some support; and the far-right, ultra-nationalist Vox party appeared on the national stage for the first time. On the left, the Socialists (PSOE) and left-wing Unidas Podemos (UP) slightly over-performed the polls, partly propelled by the fear of the rise of a neo-Francoism embodied by Vox.  

PSOE and its leader, Pedro Sanchez, were the election’s winner in the fullest sense, gaining 38 additional seats in the Congress of Deputies (the lower house of Parliament). PP and its young leader, Pablo Casado, were the clear losers, having lost around half of the party’s seats to both Vox and Ciudadanos. But does that mean that the left will reach out to the centre and centre right out of respect to the principles of the electoral system – one that attempts to give representation to all voices cast? After all, a large portion of the Spanish people opted for centre and right ideologies – albeit the subsequent fragmentation of the vote. Moreover, one can understand why the votes on the right were fragmented, considering the seriousness, strength, and viability of two of the parties represented on that spectrum (Vox certainly not one of them).

Sanchez’s strategy of a Socialist-only government might see the light of day, unless the local elections in May force him to seek tacit support from some other parties to pass key legislation. Ciudadanos would have been the logical ally, but its leader has categorically refused any post-election cooperation with PSOE due to the socialists’ stance on the crisis in Cataluña.

Funnily enough, incremental politics is a key feature in democracies. No matter how right or left one party is, there are principles of politics and a common set of beliefs and practices that supposedly protect democratic nations from erratic decisions and political manoeuvres. Even if Ciudadanos disapproved with PSOE, many other points being them together. It would have been nice to see politicians actually implementing the principles of dialogue, comprise, and humility. But it would be incredibly naïve to believe that an ideal is placed before personal interests.