English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest world news

Fair Is Foul And Foul Is Fair In Syria

Published

on

Fair Is Foul And Foul Is Fair In Syria

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

By Saeed Naqvi

 Like Henry Kissinger, New York Times columnist, Thomas L Friedman, belongs to a growing tribe of strategists who insist that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been overshadowed, indeed overwhelmed, by a much bigger, Shia-Sunni faultline.

 Even though Osama bin Laden, the 9/11 hijackers, Wahabism, Salafism, are all traced to Saudi Arabia, the US, Israel and the West in general have developed a high comfort level with Saudi Arabia regardless. In this framework, the West has placed the Shia world in opposition to it.

 Was it always like this? Consider this recent historical perspective.

 “As we approach the season of the Nobel Peace Prize, I would like to nominate the spiritual leader of Iraq’s Shiites, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, for this year’s medal.” The recommendation came from NYT ace columnist, Friedman. For emphasis, he added: “I’m serious.”

 This was in 2005. Friedman, was “in” with George W. Bush. In ecstatic pieces for the world’s most powerful newspaper, the NYT, he repeatedly described the occupation of Iraq as history’s greatest effort at democratization.

 Americans had come against Saddam Hussain, a tough Baathist and atheist by belief and a manufacturer of weapons of mass destruction. Remember Saddam invoked “Allah” for political mobilization only after the 1992 operation Desert Storm. He had Allah o Akbar inscribed on an otherwise secular emblem as an afterthought.

The eclipse of Saddam brought great relief to Shias in the South – around the holy cities of Najaf, Karbala and oil rich enclaves neighbouring Basra. For the first time the world realized that Shias were an overwhelming majority in all of Iraq.

 A triangular situation had emerged – the occupying Americans, Sunni (plus Kurdish) minority and the Shia majority. The Shias, led by Ayatollah Sistani, played a straight political hand. Once occupation had taken place, he encouraged the occupiers against his tormentor, Saddam Hussain.

 That is when Friedman was moved to write:

“If some kind of democracy takes root here (Iraq), it will also be due in large measure to the instincts and directives of the dominant Iraqi Shiite communal leader, Ayatollah Sistani.”

 “It was Sistani who insisted that the elections not be postponed in the face of the Baathist-fascist insurgency. And it was Sistani who ordered Shiites not to retaliate for the Sunni Baathist and Jihadist attempts to drag them into civil war by attacking Shiite mosques and massacring Shiite civilians.”

 Friedman proceeded to compare the Ayatollah with other icons who helped bring democracy to their respective countries – Nelson Mandela and Mikhail Gorbachev.  The quality of democracy that obtains in Russia, Iraq and South must be left for Friedman to applaud.

 Rightly or wrongly, Friedman extrapolated from his experience in Iraq. This is at a variance from the fraud Bush’s Defence Secretary, Dick Cheney sought to perpetrate on April 9, 2003, when he had the marines pull down Saddam Hussain’s state at Firdous square and attributed the event to a popular uprising.

Friedman zigzagged along shifting convictions, until by August 2015, he began to show the first signs of tolerating something so totally different from Sistani as to take one’s breath away. In a conversation with Barack Obama he appeared to be nodding agreement on a kind of positive ambiguity about the ISIS.

Sudden and exponential growth of the Islamic State was something of a mystery. It is in the nature of the post colonial media that the views of Developing country elites particularly in the Arab world (except allies like Saudi Arabia, other GCC countries and Jordan) never get reflected in the media. How did the elites in Iraq, Oman, Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Iran and other Muslim countries view the IS phenomenon. Without exception, they described it as an American, French, British, Saudi, Qatari and Turkish cooperative effort. I know first hand. Ask the ambassadors in New Delhi.

If this is what they thought, why were they silent? They were not silent, but their protestations were ignored by the global networks. So hopelessly one sided is the global media, that even shining stars of independent journalism like Seymour Hersh and Robert Fisk are killed by a simple trick of being ignored.

 Writing on Donald Trump’s proposed visit to the centres of semitic religions, Riyadh, the Vatican and Jerusalem, Fisk satirically speculates: “Trump will be able to ask Netanyahu for help against the IS without – presumably – realizing that Israel bombs only the Syrian army and the Shia Hezbollah in Syria but has never – ever – bombed IS in Syria. In fact, the Israelis have given medical aid to fighters from Jabhat al Nusra which is part of Al Qaeda which attacked the US on 9/11.”

 By universal consent, Fisk is among the most knowledgeable journalist who has lived in West Asia for decades. But the Imperial Information order keeps him outside the ken.

Truth however has a way of surfacing. Let us revert to Friedman’s interview with Obama. Friedman asked Obama why he delayed taking action against the IS when it was in its nascent stages?

Obama replies: “That we did not just start taking a bunch of airstrikes all across Iraq as soon as the IS came in was because that would have taken the pressure off Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al Maliki.”

 In other words, by the US President’s own admission, the IS at that stage worked as an asset to apply pressure on Maliki who was in bad adour with the US because he had refused to sign the Status of Forces Agreement with the US ironically on the advice of exactly the person Friedman was recommending for a Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 – Sistani.

Lo and behold, in his recent column, Friedman is advising Trump to give up the pretense of fighting IS – because that is not in the US (and presumably Israel’s) national interest.

 He wants “Trump to be Trump – utterly cynical and unpredictable. ISIS right now is the biggest threat to Iran, Hezbollah, Russia and pro-Shiite Iranian militias.”

 “In Syria” Friedman recommends, “Trump should let ISIS be Assad’s, Iran’s Hezbollah’s and Russia’s headache.” In other words, let the IS be a western asset.

 A recent cartoon with a most succinct message shows one Saudi ask another:

“We finance wars all around us, when shall we bomb the Jewish state?”

 “When it becomes Shia.”

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Latest world news

Trump says Republicans would have won US midterms if he was on ballot

US President Donald Trump claimed Republicans would have won the 2026 midterm elections in a landslide if he had been on the ballot, as Democrats made significant gains in key congressional contests.

Published

on

donald-trump

US President Donald Trump has reacted to the Republican Party’s setbacks in the 2026 US midterm elections, claiming that the party would have secured a landslide victory if he had been on the ballot.

Trump made the remark as Democrats registered significant gains in congressional contests, putting Republican control of Congress under pressure.

The November 3 midterm elections were widely seen as an important test of Trump’s presidency, with all 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 35 Senate seats up for election.

According to Trump’s assessment, his presence on the ballot would have changed the outcome for Republicans.

The President’s remarks came after Democrats made significant advances in several closely watched races, challenging Republican control of both chambers of Congress.

Democrats make gains in key congressional races

The election results indicated a strong performance by Democrats in several important contests.

In the Senate, Democrats flipped multiple Republican-held seats, including victories in Texas, South Carolina and Ohio. In the House of Representatives, Democratic candidates also defeated several Republican incumbents, bringing the party closer to securing a majority.

The developments raised the possibility of Democrats taking control of both chambers, although some contests were still being counted.

A change in congressional control would have significant implications for Trump’s remaining presidential term, potentially making it more difficult for his administration to advance its legislative agenda.

Why the 2026 US midterm elections matter

The US midterm elections take place halfway through a president’s four-year term. Unlike presidential elections, voters elect members of Congress, including representatives and a portion of the Senate.

The elections are particularly important because the party controlling Congress has considerable influence over legislation, government spending and oversight of the administration.

For Trump, the 2026 elections were a major political test as Republicans sought to maintain their congressional majorities.

Democratic gains could change the political balance in Washington during the final two years of his presidency.

Continue Reading

Latest world news

Trump approval rating near record low at 32% ahead of US midterms

US President Donald Trump’s approval rating remained at 32% ahead of the congressional midterm elections, just above his record-low reading of 31% recorded two weeks earlier, according to a nationwide poll.

Published

on

Donald Trump

US President Donald Trump’s approval rating remained close to its lowest level ahead of Tuesday’s congressional midterm elections, with a nationwide poll indicating that a significant section of American voters viewed their ballots as an opportunity to express opposition to the Republican leader.

According to the latest poll completed on Monday, November 2, only 32% of respondents approved of the job Trump was doing as President. The figure was unchanged from the previous week and just one percentage point above his record-low reading of 31%, recorded two weeks earlier.

The findings come as Republicans seek to retain their majorities in Congress, with all 435 seats in the House of Representatives up for grabs and several closely contested races expected to shape the Senate.

Although Trump himself is not on the ballot, his presidency has emerged as a significant factor in the midterm elections.

Democrats lead Republicans in nationwide congressional preference

The poll found that Democrats held an eight-percentage-point advantage over Republicans when respondents were asked which party they preferred to see in charge of Congress.

Around 46% of respondents favoured Democrats, compared with 38% who preferred Republicans.

However, the Democratic lead was narrower than the 11-percentage-point advantage recorded in a similar poll conducted a week earlier.

The so-called generic ballot question provides an overall indication of voters’ preferences between the two parties for control of Congress. However, it does not account for differences between individual states and congressional districts, which ultimately determine the composition of the House and Senate.

Political strategists from both parties believe Democrats have a stronger opportunity to take control of the House of Representatives. Their prospects in the Senate are considered more difficult, with the party facing challenges in states including Alaska and Michigan.

Half of independent voters see their vote as opposition to Trump

The survey also highlighted the extent to which Trump is influencing voters’ decisions despite not contesting the election himself.

Among registered independent voters, 50% said they viewed their congressional vote as a vote against Trump.

In comparison, 13% said their vote was in support of the President, while 33% said Trump was not a factor in their voting decision.

These findings indicate that voters’ views of the President are an important consideration for a section of the electorate heading into the congressional elections.

Rising cost of living emerges as a major election issue

Economic concerns, particularly the rising cost of living, featured prominently in the poll.

Around 78% of respondents said the cost of living would be either a very important or the most important issue in determining their voting decisions.

When asked which party was better equipped to handle the issue, 43% chose Democrats, compared with 32% who favoured Republicans.

The poll also pointed to concerns over rising fuel prices following the US military campaign against Iran, which began in February.

The increase in fuel prices has added to the economic challenges facing the Trump administration ahead of the elections.

Democrats report greater enthusiasm about voting

The survey also found a difference in voting enthusiasm between supporters of the two major political parties.

Around 49% of Democratic voters said they were very enthusiastic about voting in the midterm elections.

Among Republican voters, the corresponding figure stood at 33%.

The difference in enthusiasm is an important factor for both parties as they seek to mobilise their supporters and secure votes across the country.

The latest poll surveyed 1,765 US adults online and had a margin of error of two percentage points.

Continue Reading

Latest world news

Two helicopters collide while landing in Nepal, one Indian killed

Two helicopters struck each other while approaching a heliport near Mount Everest in Nepal. One Indian national died, while another person was taken to hospital with injuries.

Published

on

An Indian national was killed and another person injured after two helicopters collided while attempting to land at a high-altitude heliport in Nepal’s Solukhumbu district, near Mount Everest.

Nepal Police confirmed the incident in a post on X. The heliport is located around 250 km from Kathmandu, the country’s capital. The deceased was identified as Vasanth Kumar Balaramaramadu, an Indian national, according to a report by Kathmandu Post.

The accident came into public attention after a video purportedly showing the collision circulated on social media. The footage appears to show the rotor blades of the two helicopters striking each other shortly before landing, following which both aircraft fall onto the icy ground.

However, the authenticity of the video has not been independently verified by report.

Nabin Raja Budhathoki, who is in charge of Solukhumbu district police, told AFP that one foreign national had died at the scene, while another injured person had been taken to hospital.

Helicopters play an important role in Nepal, transporting tourists, mountaineers and supplies across its mountainous terrain. They are also used for emergency evacuations.

Nepal has eight of the world’s 14 highest mountains and receives thousands of foreign climbers and trekkers every year. Flying in these high-altitude areas presents considerable challenges.

At higher elevations, thinner air gives helicopter rotor blades fewer air molecules to push against, reducing the lift they can generate. Engines also receive less oxygen for combustion, which can affect their power output.

A similar high-altitude helicopter accident was reported just days earlier in India’s Uttarakhand. That helicopter crashed shortly after taking off from Badrinath, killing all six people on board, including the pilot and five passengers.

An Indian national was killed and another person injured after two helicopters collided while landing at a high-altitude heliport in Nepal’s Solukhumbu district, near Mount Everest. A purported video of the collision has surfaced on social media, but its authenticity remains unverified.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com