The Rise and Fall of the House of Saud

Updated - 2013 July 29th

This Post will be updated with news and information as the house of Saud and NATO are exposed for their crimes against the peace of the World.

Saudi Arabia, big oil & US foreign policy (Part I)

Source Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N8ymhSZzPI

With 261 billion barrels of crude oil lying beneath its soil, Saudi Arabia remains the lynchpin in the international oil grab presided over by the four horsemen; Shell, Chevron, British Petroleum, Exxon. As of 1990 Aramco (Arabian American Oil Company) produced over 8 million barrels of crude oil a day, ensuring the Saudi role as "swing producer". During the 1991 Gulf War Aramco underwent another expansion and now cranks out an unprecedented 10 million barrels a day. Aramco's primary construction contractor is Bechtel, a San Francisco-based private company that is the largest engineering firm in the world.

In 1981 the US and Saudi governments spearheaded an effort to create the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), consisting of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and UAE. All except Oman are members of OPEC. The elite families of the six GCC nations; Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and UAE are heavily invested in Western economies. High volume crude oil production keeps this investment capital flowing to Wall Street while allowing the GCC elites to live opulent lifestyles, in this way the volume of oil production is much more important than the price received for the oil for Western bankers and the GCC monarchs alike.

Saudi Arabia, big oil & US foreign policy (Part II)

Source Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UdKz42yld8

Will Saudi Arabia see the wave of changes?

Source Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwZO7fQKN3g

The Saudi monarch has given a fifth of the seats in a consultative body to women as part of social reforms promised in the year 2011. The kingdom's top religious authorities, including the Grand Mufti, have accepted the decision; however dozens of Saudi clerics have staged a protest against the decision to appoint women to the Shura Council. The Saudi monarch has given a fifth of the seats in a consultative body to women as part of social reforms promised in the year 2011.

The kingdom's top religious authorities, including the Grand Mufti, have accepted the decision; however dozens of Saudi clerics have staged a protest against the decision to appoint women to the Shura Council.

Follow Press TV on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/presstvchannel
Follow Press TV on Twitter: http://twitter.com/presstv
Follow Press TV on Tumblr: http://presstvchannel.tumblr.com

Suicide for Sale: Saudi Arabia gets cash for blood in Syria

Source Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMkpa9guxSM

Outside support for the myriad of Syria's armed groups is no secret. Saudi Arabia and Qatar alone funnel millions of dollars to the rebels every month. But, as Gayane Chichakyan reports, it's not just cash and weapons being smuggled into Syria, but suicide bombers and ideology too.

Subscribe to RT! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=RussiaToday
Watch RT LIVE on our website http://rt.com/on-air
Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/RTnews
Follow RT on Twitter: http://twitter.com/RT_com
Follow RT on Google+: http://plus.google.com/b/102728491539958529040

RT (Russia Today) is a global news network broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 500 million YouTube views benchmark.

George Galloway On The Saudi Arabian Invasion of Bahrain

Source: YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16727Iounhc

UPDATE: January 30th, 2013

 

Saudi King overthrow imminent

Source: Press TV

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iyx7dCnKe_M

Saudi Arabia's monarchy has been holding strong for nearly three centuries. But according to former aide to the White House Bruce Riedel, recent geopolitical changes are leaving the royal family vulnerable.

Riedel is a senior foreign policy fellow at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. He says that vast amounts of money have been able to keep violent waves of protest and demonstrations that could overthrow the monarchy at bay. Other protests like those that swept the Arab World have prompted the toppling of entrenched leadership.

Riedel questions the sustainability of the Saudi monarchy's methods which he says if they were overturned would not only affect surrounding Persian Gulf states but also the US.

Saudi Arabia is one of the US' oldest allies in the Middle East. For nearly two years, protesters in Saudi Arabia have held demonstrations almost regularly. Those leading an opposition movement there accuse leadership of suppressing freedom of expression and discrimination.

The demonstrations have occurred mostly in Qatif and Awamiyah in Eastern Province.

In 2011, Saudi security forces killed five protesters and injured many others in the province.

Reidel suggests that Barack Obama would be better advised to urge King Abdullah to move more rapidly on a reform agenda.

Riedel says that revolution in the Middle East could occur faster than any of us previously thought. If that happens he says, the ripple effect stemming from the uprisings would cross geopolitical borders to create a worldwide dilemma.

----------------------------------------

 

2013 – January 30^th - Press TV

Saudi ex-diplomat flees Qatar amid deportation fears

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/01/30/286444/saudi-exdiplomat-manages-to-flee-qatar/

Amnesty International says a former Saudi diplomat who was due to be deported from Qatar to his native country of Saudi Arabia has managed to travel to Morocco with the help of Qatar’s National Human Rights Committee.

The London-based human rights organization said in a recent report that Amnesty International and Qatar’s National Human Rights Committee (NHRC) pressured Qatari officials to halt the deportation of Mishal bin Zaar Hamad al-Mutiry.

According to the report, the two human rights bodies paid the al-Mutiry family’s travel expenses to Morocco. The ex-diplomat and his family left Qatar on January 18.

Before traveling to Morocco, al-Mutiry had lived in Qatar since August 2011, when he escaped Saudi Arabia.

In 2006, the former diplomat said he was arrested and tortured for six months after being tracked down and brought back by Saudi regime officials from Brussels to Riyadh.

At the time, al-Mutiry had been living in the Netherlands, where he was granted political asylum in 2004.

The ex-diplomat had been dismissed from his job at Saudi Arabia’s embassy in The Hague after accusing his native country’s embassy of funding terrorism.

Philip Luther, Middle East and North Africa Program Director at Amnesty International, said, “The spotlight on this case resulted in the Qatari authorities curtailing their plans to deport Mishal al-Mutiry long enough for him and his family to leave of their own accord, and the assistance of the NHRC was crucial to ensuring they could travel.”

“Given that Mishal al-Mutiry faced a real risk of torture in Saudi Arabia, it is a huge relief that the authorities did not end up forcing him to return there,” Luther added.

“We will continue to monitor his situation and react if the risk of being deported to Saudi Arabia arises again,” he said.

-----------------------------------

Update - 2013 – Feb 09

Saudi regime taking its last breaths

Source: Press TV

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wxbYiqFoWk

An analyst says next month the people of Saudi Arabia's anti-regime movement, led by the eastern provinces, will march on the capital Riyadh.

In the background of this in Saudi Arabia Shia cleric, Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr shot and arrested by regime forces last July 2012 for criticizing the ruling family is still a focus of anti-regime protests by the people of the eastern provinces that chant slogans for the release of the cleric who is being denied medical care in prison. Protests that are growing across the country have for some time now demanded the release of all political prisoners held in Saudi jails.

Press TV has interviewed Ali al-Ahmad, Director of IGA, Washington about this issue.

---------------------------------------

Update: 2013 Feb 14

 

Saudi Arabia, ally to West and exporter of terrorism

Source: Press TV

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/02/14/288978/s-arabia-ally-to-west-and-terror-exporter/

Saudi Arabia is viewed as a land of contradictions by many outsiders, as the country continues its widespread support for extremism and terrorist groups while being propped up by the West.

An analyst with the Institute for Middle East Studies says wealthy Saudi figures and tribes are willing to support terrorists if they believe the extremists to be pursuing a sacred cause.

Furthermore, the WikiLeaks whistleblower website has published secret documents belonging to the US Department of State, revealing that terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda receive most of their funds from Saudi Arabia.

Nonetheless, countries such as the United States continue to hail the Saudi monarchy despite the kingdom’s support for terrorism such as funding terrorists in Iraq, Syria and Yemen among other parts of the world.

Analysts attribute the US support to the huge reserves of natural resources in Saudi Arabia, while the ruling Al Saud family has proven to be a reliable and staunch ally for Washington over the past decades.

The absolute monarchy seeks to quell any instability in the region by resorting to heavy-handed crackdowns in confronting critics at home and supporting despotic regimes in neighboring countries, the observers add.

 

-------------------------------------

 

Update: 2013 March 16th

 

Saudis hold anti-regime protest in Qassim

 

Anti-regime protest in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province

Source: Press TV

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/03/16/293846/saudis-hold-antiregime-protest-in-qassim/

Demonstrators in Saudi Arabia have staged another protest rally against the Al Saud regime in central province of al-Qassim, Press TV reports.

The outraged protestors took to the streets in the city of Buraidah on Saturday, calling for the immediate release of political prisoners including a group of women who were recently arrested.

Earlier on March 1, Saudi security forces arrested over 300 people, including 15 women, in al-Qassim province.

The arrests took place after hundreds of Saudis staged a protest sit-in to demand the release of political prisoners.

Saudi activists say there are more than 30,000 political prisoners, mostly prisoners of conscience, in jails across the Kingdom.

According to the activists, most of the detained political thinkers are being held by the government without trial or legitimate charges and that they were arrested for merely looking suspicious.

Some of the detainees are reported to be held without trial for more than 16 years.

Attempting to incite the public against the government and the allegiance to foreign entities are usually the ready-made charges against the dissidents.

In Saudi Arabia, protests and political gatherings of any kind are prohibited.

Since February 2011, protesters have held demonstrations on an almost regular basis in Saudi Arabia primarily calling for the release of all political prisoners, freedom of expression and assembly, and an end to widespread discrimination.

However, the demonstrations have turned into protests against the repressive Al Saud regime, especially after November 2011, when Saudi security forces killed five protesters and injured many others in the country's Eastern Province.

----------------------------------------------
Update: 2013 March 19

Factors in place for revolution in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Source: Press TV

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUS9mff9rF8

A commentator says that all the factors and ingredients of a revolution are now present in the Persian Gulf monarchy of Saudi Arabia.

The comments come as the Al Saud regime forces have arrested dozens of prominent figures in the Persian Gulf kingdom in a two-day period as Riyadh intensifies its campaign of terror on dissidents. According to reports, security forces raided homes and offices across the capital city of Riyadh, detaining a number of religious scholars, doctors, professors, students and civil workers. Regime forces also launched similar crackdowns in the kingdom's Eastern Province and the cities of Mecca and Jeddah.

Since February 2011, demonstrators have held anti-regime protest rallies on an almost regular basis in Saudi Arabia, mainly in the Qatif region and the town of Awamiyah in Eastern Province, primarily calling for the release of all political prisoners, freedom of expression and assembly, and an end to widespread discrimination.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Ali al-Ahmad, director of the IGA from Washington DC, to shed more light on the issue at hand.

----------------------

Update: 2013 May 07

Muslim Holy Shrine Demolishing Idea Came from Saudi Arabia

Source: Press TV

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uxhb58lPfaY

-----------------------------------------------------------

June 16^th, 2013

Saudi royals planned military coup: Website

 

News Source: Press TV

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/06/16/309375/saudi-princes-planned-military-coup/

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz has ordered former deputy Defense Minister Prince Khaled bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz be put under house arrest.

The monarch apparently issued the order after the country’s intelligence services detected suspicious activities by the officers within the ground forces who are close to the former defense minister, mirataljazeera.net reported.

The king ordered the house arrest from Morocco where he was on a visit. The monarch cut short the trip and flew home to deal with the issue.

The investigation was carried out by a committee comprising six different security agencies. It revealed that the officers, in cahoots with the prince and the former governor of the Eastern Province Mohammed bin Fahad bin Abdul Aziz, currently residing in the United States, were planning to stage a coup d'état.

The website also said that the former defense minister is suspected of having a role in the coup.

Prince Khaled was dismissed by royal decree on April 21, 2013. Prince Fahd Abdullah bin Mohammed bin Abdulrahman, who was commander of Saudi naval forces since 2002, succeeded him.

There has been a power struggle within Al Saud as younger members of the royal family are vying to snatch power in case the ailing king dies.

------------------------------

June 20^th, 2013

Saudi Arabia provides heavy weaponry to militants in Syria

 

 

News Source: Press TV

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/06/20/309946/saudi-arabia-arms-militants-in-syria/

Saudi Arabia has provided the Takfiri militants operating inside Syria with Russian-made Konkurs anti-tank missiles.

According to the Daily Telegraph, militant sources said they had received the first batch of the heavy weaponry from Saudi Arabia in Aleppo.

The sources said that more arms, including higher-end missiles, would be sent to the militants later.

On June 14, US President Barack Obama ordered his administration to provide the militants with weapons, claiming that the Syrian government had used “chemical weapons” against the militants and thus crossed Washington’s “red line.” Damascus has rejected the allegation as “lies.”

Israeli President Shimon Peres voiced support for Washington’s arming of the Takfiri militants in Syria. Takfiris accuse most Islamic sects of being infidels.

However, Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned other states against providing weapons to the militants in Syria, saying that the arms could end up in Europe one day.

The crisis in Syria began in March 2011. Many people, including large numbers of Syrian soldiers and security forces, have been killed in the foreign-sponsored militancy.

Last month, the Syrian president said that militants from as many as 29 different countries were fighting against Syria.

The Syrian government says the West and its regional allies - especially Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey - are supporting the militants.

 

------------------------------------------

June 28^th, 2013

Saudi Arabia committing genocide

Video Source: Press TV

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mMN5pcrvFA

 

Tens of thousands of people in Saudi Arabia have attended the funeral of two activists who were killed by regime forces in the country's Eastern Province. The funerals were held in the town of Awamiyah and the Qatif region on Wednesday.

The mourners slammed the regime's deadly crackdown on the country's uprising and chanted slogans against the ruling Al Saud family.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Syed Ali Wasif, Society for International Reforms and Research, about the recent protests in Saudi Arabia.

----------------------------------------------

Update: 2013 July 29

 

Global demand for Saudi oil dropping

 

 

Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal

Source: Press TV

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07/29/316100/global-demand-for-saudi-oil-dropping/

Global demand for Saudi Arabian oil has been continuously dropping, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal says.

 

In open letters to high-ranking Saudi officials published on Sunday, Prince Alwaleed, a nephew of Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, expressed alarm over the fact that "92 percent of the government budget relies on oil" revenues.

"The world's reliance on OPEC oil, especially the production of Saudi Arabia, is in a clear and continuous drop," he wrote in a letter, which addressed to Ali al-Naimi, the Saudi Arabian minister of petroleum and mineral resources.

The prince added that the threat from shale gas is "definitely coming", and pointed out recent progress in this field in North America and Australia.

Shale gas is natural gas that is found trapped within shale formations and is extracted by hydraulic fracturing, or fracking -- pumping water, chemicals and sand at high pressure into rock to release it.

"Revenue diversification is a must, and that necessitates a clear vision that should be implemented immediately," said Prince Alwaleed, one of the world’s richest men with an estimated fortune of more than $20 billion.

He also called on Saudi authorities to prepare plans to generate nuclear and renewable energy to "reduce local consumption of oil as soon as possible".

 

 

 

 

 

Read More

EU bans import of Iranian gas to European countries – German FM

 

Nouri Petrochemical facilities of the South Pars gas field in the southern Iranian port of Assaluyeh (AFP Photo / Atta Kenare)

Source: Press TV

http://rt.com/news/eu-ban-iran-gas-479/

EU governments have agreed to one of the toughest sets of sanctions against Iran's nuclear program. German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle has announced the EU is banning the import of Iranian natural gas into European Union countries.

The set of sanctions also includes a ban on financial transactions between European and Iranian banks, with some exceptions for those involving humanitarian aid, food, and medicine purchases.

"The [EU] Council has agreed additional restrictive measures in the financial, trade, energy and transport sectors, as well as additional designations, notably of entities active in the oil and gas industry," a written statement issued by the European Union council said.

Further export restrictions were imposed on graphite, metals, and software for industrial processes. Restrictive measures were also made relating to Iran's ship building industry.

The move is aimed at putting pressure on Iran to cooperate in talks regarding its nuclear program.

Prior to Monday’s meeting of EU foreign ministers in Luxembourg, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said new sanctions would be"a sign of our resolve in the European Union that we will step up the pressure."

The US and its allies have long accused Iran of using its nuclear program to develop atomic weapons, although Tehran says the program is solely for peaceful purposes.

 

Read More

Icy UK on the way as energy prices rise

 

Unions in Britain have urged the government to tackle costly energy prices.

Source: Press TV

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/10/14/266694/icy-uk-on-the-way-as-energy-prices-rise/

Unions in Britain have urged the government to tackle costly energy prices, after energy provider British Gas announced its rising gas and electricity bills by 6 percent in the coming month.

Unions demanded an emergency package of efficient energy measures to tackle the growing poverty for fuel in the UK, while many households are fighting to pay bills, keep their homes warm or struggle to eat.

Some 8.5 million households in the UK will face an expensive winter as they struggle to find a way through an extra £80 a year on their energy bills.

British Gas’s energy rival Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) is already increasing its charges by an average of 9 percent on October 15, which is hitting five million electricity customers and 3.4 million gas customers across the UK.

Another energy firm called Npower followed the fashion of announcing its average rise of 8.8 percent for the gas bill and 9.1 percent for electricity consumers.

Unison national business secretary Mike Jeram warned, "It will be a long, cold winter for many pensioners, the unemployed, low paid workers and their families. This is a crisis in the making and the government needs to tackle fuel poverty head-on or we will see the number of deaths from cold rising over the winter."

Read More

Obama signs order implementing tougher sanctions on Iran

 

Source: Press TV

http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/266035.html

President Obama on Tuesday signed an executive order tightening sanctions on Iran over its nuclear-enrichment program. The order implements a new Iran sanctions law enacted in August.

The White House said the administration’s actions “have created unprecedented pressure on Iran’s economy.”

Iran policy has become a focus of the presidential election this year. During a speech Monday at the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Va., GOP candidate Mitt Romney repeated accusations that Obama is too soft on Iran and too distant from Israel, which views Iran’s nuclear program as a threat to its existence.

Romney has called on Obama to draw a clearer red line for Iran. Critics of this view warn that it could bind the U.S. and force an armed intervention.

The Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act expands the list of those targeted by Iran sanctions, closes loopholes and enhances penalties.

Those targeted include anyone who works in Iran's petroleum sectors or provides goods, services, infrastructure, or technology to Iran's oil and natural gas sector, those who insure or re-insure investments in Iran's oil sector and those who transport refined petroleum to Iran.

This law also tries to stop Iran from repatriating revenue from oil. The Hill

FACTS & FIGURES

The United States has long barred U.S. firms from doing business with Iran, but last December adopted measures that forced international buyers of Iranian oil to cut their purchases. Economic Times

In August, a second package of sanctions added further restrictions for international banks, insurance companies and oil traders. Economic Times

The United States and Israel accuse Iran of having a secret nuclear weapons program and have threatened the country with military action.

Iran insists that its nuclear energy program pursues peaceful purposes only and has warned that it will harshly respond to any foreign attack. Iranian officials say they will reply to U.S. aggression by bombing all American bases throughout the Middle East.

A recent report by the Iran Project, a group of U.S. diplomats and military officials, concluded that U.S. strikes would provoke a war that would last years and cost the U.S. at the very least hundreds of billions of dollars per year.

Iran, as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, says the nation is entitled to develop nuclear technology for civilian use.

Read More

Nuclear Weapons. Who Needs “Red Lines”: Iran or Israel?

 

By: Nabi Sonboli

Source; Global Research

http://www.globalresearch.ca/nuclear-weapons-who-needs-red-lines-iran-or-israel/

In his September 23, 2012 speech at the United Nations General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked the United States and its allies to define clear red lines for the Iranian nuclear program, emphasizing that Iran will reach the threshold at which it could manufacture a nuclear bomb by mid 2013. A deep scrutiny of the past and of present events and trends tells a different story.

After Iraq’s defeat in the 1990 war in Kuwait, Israeli officials focused on the Iranian nuclear program as the main threat to Israel security. At first they alleged that Iran had bought nuclear weapon components from the former Soviet Republics. Then they put aside that argument and stressed that Iran was seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, and would reach that target within a few years and requested that the U.S. and EU to do everything possible to prevent Tehran from achieving that goal. Israel had sufficient influence in the U.S. to see sanctions imposed on the Iranian oil industry in mid the 1990s. But European powers that were tired of following the U.S. and Israeli lead after the end of the Cold War were not prepared to accept these arguments. They improved their relations with Tehran and consequently the attempt to apply U.S. laws regarding Iran extraterritorially failed.

However, the Israeli lobby succeeded in convincing the U.S. of the threat posed by Iraq. Sanctions and military attacks against Iraq continued until that country was invaded by a U.S.-UK arranged coalition in 2003. During the presidency of G.W. Bush, Israel benefited from the support of Neo-conservatives who held high office in his administration. Tel Aviv put aside the peace process and launched military attacks against Lebanon in 2006, Syria in 2007 and Gaza in 2009. Israel also encouraged the U.S. to put increased military and economic pressure on Iran. To satisfy Israel, the Bush administration undermined the “EU3’s” negotiations with Tehran, and constantly emphasized that “all options were on the table”[1]. However, the U.S. administration was hamstrung, because of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Finally, realities weakened the Neoconservatives and brought Realists back to power in Washington. The bipartisan Iraqi Study Group recommended negotiation with Iran to stabilize Iraq.

The Bush administration found a clever method by which to deflect Israeli pressure and Neoconservative rhetoric. After years of emphasizing that “all options were on the table,” the administration had two options- either: (i) to implement their threats or (ii) to take the military option off of the table. The U.S. also gradually began to feel the economic consequences of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq at home and was therefore not able to launch another war. President Bush did not change his position but the U.S. intelligence agencies rather acted to remove the urgency of the Iranian threat. In 2007 the U.S. intelligence community published a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that assessed that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. The NIE paved the way for the U.S. to negotiate with Tehran in Baghdad and to join in the nuclear negotiations with Tehran.

The U.S. intelligence community’s position on Iran’s nuclear program has not changed. Moreover, the current positions of Iran and the U.S. are compatible with one another. The U.S. emphasizes that Iran be prohibited from acquiring nuclear weapons, while Iran emphasizes its right as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to enrich nuclear fuel. The NPT accommodates both of these sets of interests. Consequently Iran and the U.S. have a common basis for negotiation.

During the Bush administration, the Israeli lobby in the United States succeeded in imposing a red line on U.S. conservative establishment policy that was illegal under international law. And that was to insist that no enrichment take place in Iran. The Obama administration changed this redline to one compliant with international law, whereby Iran not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons. The swap agreement [2] that was proposed and then rejected by the U.S. included tacit agreement to the idea that nuclear fuel could continue to be enriched in Iran. In the recent nuclear negotiations with Iran that took place in Istanbul, Baghdad and Moscow, the EU3+3 have also tacitly accepted that the enrichment of nuclear fuel in Iran can continue; the negotiators have asked that Tehran refrain from enriching nuclear fuel up to the twenty percent purity level—even though such enrichment is legal under the International law.

The Israeli position continues to differ from that of the U.S. and the EU3+3. Tel Aviv emphasizes denying nuclear technology to Iran, but its main target is actually to weaken Iran irrespective of the state of Iran’s nuclear program. Israel’s main problem is not with Iran but with its immediate neighbors. Tel Aviv has lost its control over its neighborhood and cannot influence the situation there. At a minimum, Israel feels besieged by new, unknown forces. By emphasizing the Iranian nuclear issue Israel is pursuing two goals: (i) to create a new (Iranian-Israeli) conflict so that (ii) the world forgets the old (Arab-Israeli) one.

Due to the fact that Arab governments are concerned about the Iranian nuclear program and Iranian regional influence, Israel has somehow been able to create a loose Arab-Israeli alliance against Iran. We should not forget that Arabs did not condemn the Israeli military actions against Lebanon in 2006 and Hamas in 2009. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are more concerned about Iran than about Israel. The Syrian conflict and Saudi-Qatari support for extremists there demonstrate this very clearly. The question is, if the extremists succeed in Syria, who will their next targets be? Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia or the U.S.? This is why the U.S. and EU are hesitant about intervening in Syria.

What Israel fears most is not Iran but being left to its own devices by the West in an instable region. For the first time, Israel really feels isolated in the region. Because of their internal economic problems, the EU and the U.S. are not capable of defending Israel by going to war. Israel has lost both its supremacy in the region and the commitment of its allies. What Israel is seeking to achieve is to keep the U.S. and EU engaged in the region by maneuvering them into launching another war. For Israel, the costs of the war and the degree of success it achieves are secondary issues. The main objective is a long-term U.S. and EU commitment and involvement in the conflict on Israel’s side.

Israeli security is important for the U.S. and EU but not more important than their own interests. The U.S. knows very well that, if the Israelis attack Iran, the U.S. has no option but join them. If they do so, however, they will not be able to defend their own interests. The U.S. has great military power, but many vulnerable interests as well. The EU’s vulnerabilities are even more pronounced than those of the U.S. Consequently, long-term conflict in the Middle East will be too costly for the U.S. and EU to tolerate.

Iranian behavior during the past decade demonstrates that Tehran is not seeking nuclear weapons. By implementing the Additional Protocol to the NPT from 2003 to 2005 and by subsequently resolving outstanding issues with the IAEA, Iran demonstrated that its nuclear program is peaceful. Iran’s religious leader has issued a fatwa against the acquisition of nuclear weapons as a clear demonstration of Iran’s future intentions. This fatwa has the capacity to prevent the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Muslim countries and to prevent the use of such a weapons by Islamic groups.

After years of intervention, sanctions, political pressure, covert warfare and cyber- attacks, Iran has much more reason to be concerned about the real intentions of Israel, the U.S. and its allies than the latter have to be concerned about those of Iran. A nuclear capacity has simply provided a minor form of reinsurance of Iran’s security; it does not deter any attack on Iran. But those who intend to attack Iran, should think twice or more. Iranians have now understood the importance attached to such a nuclear capacity in U.S. and Israeli military calculations. This shows that a peaceful nuclear capacity can also contribute to peace and stability—it is not even necessary to have nuclear weapons in order to deter rational enemies.

If we compare the behavior of Iranian and Israeli leaders, we can easily conclude that Iranian behavior has been much more rational. Voluntary cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, implementation of the modality agreement, acceptance of the swap proposal, cooperation and negotiation with the U.S. to bring peace and stability to Iraq and Afghanistan are all clear indicators of rational behavior in Tehran. If any of the Western countries had faced the threats and pressures that Iran faces, they would surely have behaved differently. Israel will not be able to achieve sustainable peace by force in the new Middle East. Regional concerns about Iran’s nuclear program can be solved through regional security dialogue. Iran has always supported bilateral and multilateral dialogue with neighboring countries.

U.S. and Israeli options are limited: accept an Iranian nuclear enrichment capacity under the IAEA control or strike and then accept the reconstitution of the same capacity outside of IAEA control. It took many years for the U.S. to change its position from no enrichment to low enrichment. Israel has not yet been able to make up its mind. Someone needs to go to Tel Aviv and help Israelis comprehend that Iran’s nuclear capacity is a reality and that Iran is a rational player. The existence of such a capacity in the hands of a rational player that has been engaged and integrated at the regional and global levels, will be different from its existence in the hands of a player that has been attacked by all means. Sanctions, cyber attacks, isolation, and the terrorization of Iranian nuclear scientists have simply exacerbated the situation and led to a loss of Western influence on Iran.

The Middle East is already unstable enough. Israel has just one option: accept the new realities, change its behaviors and look for sustainable peace. During the last decade the U.S. and its allies were the main losers due to instability in Iraq and Afghanistan. Economic and social instability paved the way for moderate Islamists to come to power, but if the instability continues to grow, they will not be able to solve problems and keep their positions. Extremists are at the gate from North Africa to Central and South Asia. These developments have limited U.S. and Israeli freedom of action in the Middle East, not the Iranian nuclear program.

If being moderate or extremist is a criterion for being entitled to possess a nuclear capability, then Israel clearly fails, as it currently has a most extreme government. That is why EU and the US should set a red line for Israel and not let it to impose its policies on them. In recent weeks Israeli officials have repeatedly talked about a military strike against Iran and Western countries have mostly remained silent. Extremists in Israel have clearly demonstrated their intention and if they strike Iranian nuclear facilities, Western officials cannot say that they have not been informed. Those who provide all kinds of weapons for Israel have more responsibility. Just as in the case of the ongoing economic war against Iran, innocent people will be the main victims of any military strike. The Iranian nuclear program enjoys strong national support. U.S., Israeli and EU pressures target Iranian nation, nationalism in Iran and will have long-term consequences for the West.

Netanyahu’s request at the UN General Assembly strengthened the well-established belief in the Middle East that Israel and its lobbies determine European and American policies toward the region. With this opinion widespread in the Middle East, Washington and Brussels will not benefit from Arab Spring. It is time for Western countries to stop Israel from intervening in their domestic and foreign policies and for them distinguish between values and interests that they do and do not share with Israel. Netanyahu’s speech in the UNGA demonstrated his arrogant approach toward the West. If Western powers cannot control Israel, it will impose at least another three trillion dollars in costs upon them. During the past decades, Israeli officials have followed one imaginary enemy after another: Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and now Iran are among the list and it will extend to other countries in the Middle East and North Africa. This approach needs to be stopped. The U.S. and EU need to clearly impose the following redlines on Israel:

First: Do not interfere in U.S. and EU politics. Western officials are wise enough to recognize their interests and know how to decide.

Second: Occupation, intervention, violation of Palestinian rights, and the terrorization of scientists are not values and interests that Israel, the U.S. and EU share in common. Tel Aviv must desist from these policies.

Third: A regime which has manufactured nuclear weapons and is not a member of the NPT does not have right to tell an NPT member state what to do.

Fourth: A regime that has repeatedly attacked its neighbors during the past five decades cannot accuse a peaceful nation of having such an intention.

Fifth: Israeli officials should not mislead the international community. It is twenty years that they have been saying that Iran will reach nuclear weapons within a few years. All those years have passed without any nuclear weapon and the next year will also end in the same way.

Sixth: The U.S. and EU are no longer ready to pay the price for Israeli mistakes. Because of past unconditional support, Israel has repeatedly attacked its neighbors and has not learned how to live with them.

Seventh: Preventing war is a global responsibility and the international community will stop Israel from launching another one.

Solving the Iranian nuclear issue has never been complicated. Transparency for recognition is still the best solution. Iran is ready to increase transparency if the other parties to the EU3+3 negotiations negotiate seriously. Iran has not rejected re-implementing the Additional Protocol either. A transparent nuclear program will not endanger anyone’s security. Many countries around the world have such a capacity, including Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, South Africa and Brazil. Iran has no problem with transparency; the problem is that the U.S. and some of its allies have not been able to recognize Iran’s rights, role and interests. The U.S. has tried to exclude Iran from any regional and international mechanism. They have just tactically engaged Iran in some cases such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Israeli pressure has been an important factor, but we should not neglect other domestic and international elements. Iranophobia is not limited to Israeli extremists. Many people, even some elites, in the West suffer from a distorted image of Iran. Reinforcing closed doors by sanctions, isolation, military threats, and cyber attacks will not lead to transparency and cooperation. All sides need to pave the way for doors to open.

Notes:

[1] i.e. including a possible military attack on Iran

[2] whereby nuclear fuel enriched to twenty-percent purity in Iran would be shipped out of Iran in exchange for enriched nuclear fuel to power the Tehran Research reactor (TRR) supplied from abroad

Read More

West using terror to plunder oil resources of Nigeria

 

By: Finian Cunningham

Source: Press TV

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/10/07/265435/west-using-terror-to-destabilize-nigeria/

Nigeria, Africa’s top oil producing nation, is witnessing a surge in sectarian violence that is destabilizing the central government and threatening to split the country in two.

On the surface, a militant group known as Boko Haram appears to be the protagonist. But some believe that powerful Western interests are using the violence to consolidate foreign control over Nigeria’s vast oil wealth.

With a population of 160 million, Nigeria is the known as the “giant of Africa”. In addition to crude oil, Nigeria has also the biggest reserves of natural gas among Sub-Saharan nations. Western energy companies are gearing up to tap this wealth even further in the coming years. Balkanising the country into North-South entities would undermine the central government in Abuja and bolster exploitation by these corporations.

Recent national security concerns by the US government and its Western allies, Britain and France, have featured West Africa as a new global priority. These powers have warned against the rise of so-called terrorism in the region and are citing this threat as a reason for expanding their military presence in Burkino Faso, Cote D’Ivoire, Mali and Niger. Britain’s former colony Nigeria is emerging as a supposed top Western security concern.

The cold-blooded slaughter last week of 25 students and staff at a college dormitory in northern Nigeria has been linked to the militant group, Boko Haram.

The secretive sect is blamed for nearly 1,400 killings since 2009, involving a campaign of terror that has seen bomb and gun attacks on government buildings, police stations, communication facilities, churches and even mosques.

On the country’s Independence Day last Monday night, a group of unknown armed men entered the Federal Polytechnic premises in the northeastern town of Mubi. The attackers called out students by name, according to local police, and then proceeded to execute the victims by gunshot or by slitting their throats with knives.

The killings have since sparked a desperate exodus of students from the town, and the region has become gripped by heightened fears of further bloodshed.

Boko Haram seems the most likely culprit. The reclusive network is said to want to impose a strict version of religious law and to ban all symbols of Western influence, including the central government of President Goodluck Jonathan. Western commentators have labeled the group “Nigeria’s Taliban”.

However, some Nigerian analysts believe that the organization is being used by powerful external forces as a conduit for destabilizing Nigeria. Political analyst Olufemi Ijebuode says: “The upshot of this latest massacre is to destabilize the state of Nigeria by sowing sectarian divisions among the population. The killers may have been Boko Haram operatives, but Boko Haram is a proxy organization working on behalf of foreign powers.”

“The bottom line is that this murderous attack, as with many, many others in recent years, is saying that the Nigerian government is not in control of its own country,” adds Ijebuode.

A timeline of Boko Haram’s insurgency shows a remarkable increase in violent capability. The group was first formed in 2002 in the city of Maiduguri, the northeast most state of Borno. However, it was not until mid-July 2009 that it adopted violent tactics, apparently following a heavy-handed crackdown by Nigerian security forces that involved extrajudicial killings of leading members.

In these initial violent clashes, supporters of Boko Haram were armed with rudimentary means, such as attacking police stations with motorcycles laden with fuel and even using bows and poison-tipped arrows.

Within two years, the group had acquired assault rifles and was able to mount bomb attacks in the capital Abuju, including one on the police headquarters in June 2011. Two months later, in August 2011, the United Nations headquarters in Abuja was bombed, killing 24 people.

In the following months, the group carried out a wave of coordinated bomb and gun attacks in several cities across the north of the country that resulted in hundreds of deaths. As well as government buildings, churches and mosques have been targeted in a deliberate attempt to provoke sectarian hate.

Some of these attacks are not claimed by any group. At the end of 2011, in what appeared to be a particularly heinous bid to inflame tensions, a series of bomb attacks were carried out at churches on Christmas Day across Nigeria causing many casualties and outrage.

After the latest atrocity at the college in Mubi last week, former US ambassador to Nigeria John Campbell wrote: “It is not clear to me why the levels of violence have spiked periodically since Christmas 2011.” Campbell reiterated the significant observation: “The Mubi atrocity will feed a popular perception that the government can no longer ensure security in large parts of the country.”

A major part of that insecurity is the growing violence between Muslim and Christian communities. In June, earlier this year, at least 92 people were killed in clashes between Muslims and Christians in the northern city of Kaduna, which were sparked by suicide bombings of churches on three consecutive Sundays.

Nigeria’s national composition is roughly 50:50 between Muslims and Christians. But this division follows a North-South pattern, with the latter mainly populated by Christians. Southern Nigeria is also where the country’s oil wealth is located, in the Niger Delta area. The danger is that the escalation of bloodshed in recent years is leading to the fragmentation of country.

Boko Haram espouses the creation of a Northern Muslim state along the lines of an ancient caliphate before the British amalgamated the territory in 1903. And, owing to animosity over sectarian violence, many Christians in the South of the country would only be too glad to part company with their Northern Muslim counterparts.

However, the fragmentation of Nigeria would undermine the political base of the central government. Nigeria’s political class has an unenviable reputation for institutionalized corruption and graft. Those flaws would most probably intensify in splintered and weakened political administrations. In that scenario, the powerful Western oil companies stand to gain by extracting even more favorable terms for oil production.

Nigeria is Africa’s top oil producer, pumping some two million barrels of crude per day. That is comparable to about 60 per cent of Iran’s daily output and a quarter of Saudi Arabia’s. Nigeria has also vast reserves of natural gas, the biggest in Sub-Saharan Africa, some 17 times greater than those of the second biggest source, Angola.

According to the US Energy Information Administration, Nigeria’s oil output will increase by 50 per cent over the coming years as result of investment in new fields by oil giants Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell and Total. Of these firms, Shell is the oldest operator in Nigeria beginning in 1936. During the years of insurgency in the Niger Delta by the Ogoni people, Shell reportedly colluded with death squads to quash that insurrection.

Most of Nigeria’s oil output - some 40 per cent of its exports - is destined for the United States. Indeed, Nigeria has become the fourth major oil supplier to the US behind Canada, Saudi Arabia and Mexico.

Despite oil export earnings of around $45 billion a year and more than five decades as a major producer, Nigeria remains one of the poorest countries on earth. More than 70 per cent of the population subsist on less than $1.25 a day.

The importance of Nigeria as an oil supplier to the US is set to grow as new facilities come on stream over the next five years. This mirrors the growing importance of West Africa in general as a new oil-producing region, with recent discoveries in Ghana and Niger and offshore fields in the Gulf of Guinea.

It is in this context that recent political violence raging across Nigeria is perhaps best understood. America’s top military officer for Africa, General Carter Ham told Associated Press in August 2011: “What is most worrying at present is, at least in my view, a clearly stated intent by Boko Haram and by al-Qaeda in the Maghreb to coordinate and synchronise their efforts.” He added that this would be “the most dangerous thing to happen” to US interests in Africa.

Notably, the US has stepped up military liaison with Nigeria over the past two years, with the despatch of American Special Forces and training in counter-terrorism.

Political analyst Olufemi Ijebuode is convinced that Britain, France and Israel have also stepped up covert military involvement in Nigeria over the same period. He says that it is significant that the hotbed of Boko Haram activity is in the northeast of the country near the border with the three Francophone former colonies of Niger, Chad and Cameroon. “These countries are known to have strong presence of French Special Forces. There is no way that given the surveillance of these covert forces that the activities of Boko Haram would go undetected.”

The rapid militarization of Boko Haram with advanced ordnance and techniques, plus the notorious corruption among Nigeria’s military, its involvement in violations and extrajudicial killings, has created the suspicion that foreign powers are colluding with this shadowy network to foment political violence and instability in Nigeria. It would not be the first time that Western powers contrive a security concern over supposed terrorists in order to implement an ulterior geopolitical agenda, as has been seen in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The same Western objective of fracturing, balkanising and weakening countries is also seen to be playing out in Sudan, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Syria. Nigeria’s oil and gas riches and its position as a natural leader of African nations underscores the Western objective with regard to West Africa.

Read More

Suppliers of arms to opposition want to destroy the Syrian people – Iraqi PM

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki

Source: Russia Today

http://rt.com/news/iraqi-pm-maliki-interview-703/

States that send arms to Syria face upheavals and unrest due to sectarian violence, their stability will be in jeopardy and the state of affairs will be no better than in Syria, warned Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki in an interview to RT.

"He who starts a fire will be destroyed by fire in the end,” Al-Maliki stated, predicting that sponsorship of the Syrian opposition will backfire on supporting states.

RT: What do Iraq and Russia have in common in terms of their approach to the Syrian crisis; and do you think the two countries can come up with a joint proposal on how to settle it?

Nouri Al-Maliki: Of course, the crisis is a matter of serious concern both for the countries in the region and for the world’s major powers. And it’s not only countries – this issue has been on the agenda of many international organizations. We have repeatedly said that we take the Syrian crisis as our own problem. It is a very important country, with its own political position. We did warn everyone earlier – and keep reminding – that the fire that started in Syria will spill over the borders to engulf other countries of the region and, in the end, it will have a global impact. The Middle East is one of the major energy producers of the world.

Just like Russia, we believe that the use of force cannot be a solution to the crisis. Many other countries now share this approach, even those that used to think that supplying arms to the opposition would be sufficient to generate regime change. They now recognize that it is impossible to settle the Syrian crisis through the use of force. This is also Russia’s position.

Russia, Iraq and many other countries are united in their conviction that force will not end the crisis in Syria – we need to look for a peaceful solution through political dialogue. It is our joint task – I mean Iraq, Russia and the whole international community – to help both sides find common ground, to agree on a mutually-acceptable form of government.

This new government must be based on the principles of freedom and democracy. The Syrians must have the right to vote, they must have a Constitution. These are the things that the Syrian people demanded when they started the revolution. But of course, not everybody in Syria agrees with these demands, some groups don’t think that reforms are needed. We’ve heard different statements and demands. Of course dialogue will continue, because we are very much concerned about what’s going on in Syria. We have been seriously affected by the situation in Syria. We have experienced some spillover effects of the Syrian crisis here in Iraq.

We will discuss this issue with our Russian counterparts; we will talk about possible ways to make existing initiatives effective, including the original peace plan put forward by the Arab League, as opposed to the flawed proposals made during the sessions of the ministerial committee and the Geneva agreements. According to them, there is no military solution to the conflict. The agreements call for an end to arms supplies both to the opposition and the regime. Unfortunately, a number of states ignore these initiatives and continue to send arms to Syria, which only makes the situation worse.

This is where Russia, Iraq, China, and many Muslim and Arab countries in the region agree. It is our duty to address this issue and try to find ways out of this turmoil which, we are afraid, might turn into a fully-fledged regional war.

RT: How would you assess the calls by some countries, especially Arab countries that have the support of the West, for military intervention in order to resolve the crisis in Syria?

NM: I’d give them a piece of brotherly advice: “Forget it! He who starts a fire will be destroyed by fire in the end.” Those who want Syria to follow this path have to understand that it will destroy the Syrian people. This is what’s happening in Syria right now. Cities lie in ruins, the war rages on and is likely to spill over involving new actors – international, regional, religious and political ones. If they care about themselves and their people, if they seek stability and security, if they care about Syria and its people, they have to stop sowing the seeds of discord by supplying arms. They also have to stop thinking it will be them who will shape Syria’s future.

I met with several representatives of the Syrian opposition and I felt they understand the threat that is coming from the Arab forces that provide them with weapons. These forces openly declare that they want to interfere in Syria’s affairs. But the Syrian nation is against it.

RT: Do you share the view that it’s foreign interference in Syria’s affairs that’s made the situation in the country so dangerous?

NM: Absolutely. And they will keep driving it to an even more dangerous degree until eventually it will backfire on the states that are now sponsoring the Syrian opposition. All these states will face upheavals and unrest due to sectarian violence, foreign interference, the spillover effect and expansion. They’re already feeling it. If these countries keep sending arms and using force for a regime change, their stability will be in jeopardy, and the situation inside these countries will be no better than in Syria.

RT: What do you think about the “national partnership government”? Is this the best form of governance to help to move Iraq forward or are there any negative aspects that make that government less effective? What do you think of “the majority government”, something many other countries rely on?

NM: A partnership government has exhausted both its capacity and agenda. It was necessary during previous stages, but not any longer. Right now everyone, even the people of Iraq, feel that the regime of national partnership keeps our hands tied, hinders our development, stands in the way of the breakthrough that Iraq could make in the development of infrastructure, the services sector and economic recovery.

We hear more and more voices now, in our society and in parliament, calling for a shift to a majority government, to make parliament united so that it can pass decisions and laws that would help to rule the state; because right now the government is paralyzed. It can’t do anything. The partnership originally built to pursue a major breakthrough has now degraded to a partnership that generates obstacles. Because of that we need a majority government, and I am working hard to make it a reality.

RT: Both the Iraqi government and its citizens still suffer from regular terror attacks. Who is behind this violence – international players interfering in your affairs or Al-Qaeda militants opposing the political process? Or are there any other reasons that the Iraqi people are not aware of? Why is it so hard to take out these armed groups that are still out there?

NM: Violence continues and it’s been down to all the factors you have mentioned. Foreign intervention is fully underway. What they want to do is to use these acts of violence to prepare for the next, post-Syrian stage. It’s the same states that are now interfering in Syria. They are sending arms and militants there, over and over again. Their goal is to change Syria, then Iraq, and ultimately the entire region. Also, Al-Qaeda is back, it came to life again – regrettably, as part of the Arab Spring. It flooded the streets in the capitals of Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen. Its slogans, groups and terrorist attacks are clear signs of its revival, and Iraq couldn’t escape that. And those states that are interfering won’t escape it either.

But the really embarrassing thing is that the national partnership government cannot be effective in the fight against terrorism. That’s the problem. When your partner supports both security measures and terrorist acts, you get problems. I wouldn’t like to go into detail now. I am only saying that this is one of the downsides to the national partnership. How can we expect security agencies to control the situation when the government’s own money, arms, transport, and the nature of the government are used to support those seeking to carry out terrorist attacks?

RT: Mr. Maliki, when Iraq was about to buy F-16 fighter jets, Iraqi Kurds, along with some neighboring states, including the Gulf countries voiced their concerns over the future deal. Are these concerns justified? And can they be allayed?

NM: They are totally unsubstantiated. These people might still have old stereotypes of Iraq that go back to the times of dictatorship that were characterized by reckless operations, wars and invasions. Some regimes, both big and small, still have expansionist ambitions. Sadly, they have learned no lessons from Saddam Hussein’s experience. He had it all: troops and offensive capabilities, but the end of his career was a disaster. These people still believe that just like in the past, Iraq is still capable of invading its neighbors, concocting conspiracies, attacking other countries like Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia or slaughtering people in its southern or northern regions.

But today Iraq is a different country. It does not wage war on its own people. The Kurds who believe that Iraq is taking up arms to fight them are seriously deluded.

These talks are no more than political maneuvering used to make up for the mistakes and failures of the past. These countries are aware that present-day Iraq has nothing in common with the dictatorship of the past. It is a democratic country which is against the use of force, as set forth in the laws adopted by its parliament. Generally speaking, our main principle is non-interference in the affairs of other states. But we would like this to be a two-way street.

But the reality is that Iraq is located in an arms-infested region. All the neighboring states have impressive arsenals of modern weapons. Even the smaller states in the region have more weapons than Iraq, a large state with a rich history. Iraq is entitled to self-defense, so it has the right to use different armaments to protect its sovereignty. And so it can have the same weapons as other countries who claim they need the same weapons as Iraq to defend their sovereignty.

I would like to allay their concerns by saying that Iraq is not interested in offensive weapons, only defensive ones. Indeed, we would like to have very strong defensive weapons to repel any attack on Iraq’s sovereignty. But primitive weapons won’t be enough. What we need is something very strong and absolutely sophisticated to counter any possible aggression. This would make anyone who plans to breach our sovereignty to think twice before attacking Iraq.

RT: Mr Prime Minister, as commander-in-chief, when do you expect Iraq’s armed forces to reach combat readiness in terms of the size of personnel and materials?

NM: We already have the number of troops that we need, but we are still working on the list of weapons and hardware. We are receiving weapons supplies from the US, former Soviet nations and possibly from Russia, too, in line with the contracts that we signed earlier. However, we expect to ensure maximum defensive capabilities by 2020, according to the plans we have at the moment. By that time we expect to re-equip the armed forces with powerful weapons to protect Iraq on land and in the air. So currently we would still be able to defend the nation but our capabilities need to be maintained and further improved.

 

Read More