The United Arab Emirates have changed their region with a course of determined modernization and are becoming a prime example of a better, more peaceful Middle East.

The UAE: an Oasis of Calm in a Troubled Region

In an Arab world torn by war and conflict, the United Arab Emirates is one of the few bright spots. The federation, which was only founded in 1971, is built on a promise of prosperity, good governance, and more social freedoms — if not political freedoms — than in most other Arab states.

Simply put, the United Arab Emirates promises a future. The old Arab states, on the other hand, live from the nostalgia of past greatness. The UAE is now rightfully considered the most influential Arab state by many analysts.

Embracing Constant Change

The UAE is continually changing. The latter is a must. To maintain the order of autocratic rulers, constant change is required. Most recently, the country gave up a decades-long Arab blockade against Israel and, on August 13, declared that they would establish diplomatic relations with the state. For years they had forged closer relationships  and showed no reservations and the Abraham Accord just made it official.

In 2009, for example, the “International Renewable Energy Organization” (Irena) was founded in Abu Dhabi, knowing full well that Israeli ministers would now visit the Emirates regularly and the flag with the Star of David would be placed on conference tables — utterly unthinkable in the majority of the other Arabs States.

Moreover, the secret services and the fight against COVID-19 have also allowed numerous avenues of cooperation between the two states over the past years.

Key Dates in Recent UAE History

Two dates, in particular, shape the United Arab Emirates. The attacks of September 11, 2001 were a wake-up call for the leadership of the Emirates, and they quickly learned two lessons from them. On the one hand, religion was supposed to be more than merely a private matter; on the other hand, it was essential to create a modern, attractive state that would prevent any belief in an allegedly superior and extremist Islamic state from emerging.

Good governance and small government have so far been part of Dubai’s success story and women have been explicitly promoted to advance gender rights.

The second turning point was in 2013. In Egypt, President Husni Mubarak, a friend of the Emiratis, was overthrown, and the Muslim Brotherhood’s Muhammad Morsi was made into the new president. However, above all, Muhammad Bin Zayed and the Emiratis see the Muslim Brotherhood as an existential threat and decided to take the reorganization of the near and Middle East into their own hands.

With their petrodollars and their media, they were the decisive force behind Morsi’s overthrow and the installation of President Abd al Fattah al Sisi. Following this, bin Zayed’s government also got involved in Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.

Using the Power of Oil and Military Might

The UAE’s vast oil reserves are the first requirement for their regional power expansion. A tenth of the world’s oil reserves lies under the soil of the Emirates. The second prerequisite for this was that in 2009 bin Zayed commissioned elite Australian special forces soldier Michael Hindmarsh to rebuild the Emirati armed forces. Together with modern American weapons, they quickly became the most powerful army in the Arab world.

The Iran Nuclear Deal

Then the hour came when President Barack Obama had the nuclear deal negotiated with Iran in 2015. Emirati confidence in the United States melted.

Bin Zayed now made an increasingly independent foreign and security policy, which he coordinated less and less with Washington, but instead with the Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman. In relation to Iran, the Crown Prince from Abu Dhabi follows a softer line than America and Saudi Arabia since the Emirates would be an easy target for Iran, and they profit from trade with Iran. He made peace with Syria because he prefers Assad as ruler to a possible rule by Islamist rebels.

Not everything that bin Zayed initiated was crowned with success: the boycott did not bring Qatar to its knees; he hastily withdrew the Emirates from the war in Yemen, in which there can be no military victor; and in Libya, the rebel general Khalifa Haftar did not live up to the hopes placed in him. Still, he has shown remarkable success in leading the UAE into the future.

With the official recognition of Israel, the Emirates and Crown Prince bin Zayed have now underscored their claim to be the preeminent leader and pioneer of the Arab world.

L'articolo The United Arabic Emirates: a Role Model for the Whole Region proviene da InsideOver.

The United Arab Emirates became the first Arab country to open a nuclear power plant last weekend, on August 1. It is the third regional power to do so after fellow Middle Eastern arch-rivals Israel and Iran. But unlike Israel, who has a yet-to-be-known amount of nuclear weapons, and Iran, whose uranium enrichment program is demonstrably perilous to the Middle East, Emiratis haved vowed to only use their nuclear power for energy purposes.

Why is the UAE Building Up its Nuclear Power Program?

Purportedly built to diminish its dependence on oil and gas, the Emirates’ new nuclear program is expected to provide a quarter of the country’s electricity, while its oil and gas exports account for about a quarter of its gross domestic product. However, its four nuclear power units, which were designed by a South Korean firm, have yet to start running, Emiratis said.

Regional powers such as Qatar and Iran, reacted to the UAE’s move by deeming it a threat to the stability of the Middle East. While Doha fears that Emiratis are bolstering their regional hegemony with the new nuclear program, Iran saw in it a novel menace added to that of Israel. Although the United Arab Emirates and Israel have yet to normalize diplomatic ties — despite covert efforts — their shared enmity toward Iran and alliance with the United States appears to have only been growing over the past years.

Qatar and Iran Condemn UAE’s Nuclear Program

In a letter sent by Qatar to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (a UN watchdog) last year, Doha expressed its concerns about its neighboring country’s nuclear program and called on the organization to establish a framework for nuclear security in the region.

“Qatar believes that the lack of any international cooperation with neighboring states regarding disaster planning, health and safety and the protection of the environment pose a serious threat to the stability of the region and its environment,” the letter read.

Qatar, whose ties with the United Arab Emirates have been strained in the last decade over accusations that Qatar supported terrorism in Syria and other conflicted neighboring countries, said that a radioactive plume from an accidental discharge could reach Doha within 13 hours. Qatar also feared that a radiation leak would have a devastating effect on the whole region’s water supply.

The Emirati Perspective

The United Arab Emirates, however, argued that its Barakah nuclear plant, based in Al Gharbiya region that borders Qatar and Saudi Arabia, conforms to the international standards, including those of the International Atomic Energy Agency. “We proudly witness the start of Barakah nuclear power plant operations, in alignment with the highest international safety standards,” Mohammed bin Zayed, the United Arab Emirates’ de facto ruler, tweeted the day of the opening of Barakah.

The nuclear power plant was set to launch on 2017, after a deal with the United States in 2009. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are likely to follow suit, after similar deals with the United States.

Inflaming Middle Eastern Tensions?

Many observers and analysts see in such projects the risk of flaring up tensions between the Middle East’s major actors, not least Iran and its regional proxies, such as the Houthi rebels in Yemen – who claimed an attack against the Barak plant while it was still under construction in 2017. But such plans would not come to be realized without the United States’ explicit support, and thus fall in line with the US foreign policy in the Middle East and the already existing geopolitical settings there.

While Egypt is also planning to build a plant with four nuclear reactors, Saudi Arabia aims at establishing the region’s most significant one, with a plant that would bear as many as 17 reactors.

But none of the Arab countries would use their programs to develop nuclear weapons, as required by the United States, which urged the Saudis and Emiratis to sign safeguard agreements that would allow intrusive inspections. Thus, Israel would remain the only regional country believed to have access to nuclear weapons (with few to no inspections at all), while Iran persists in attempts to achieve the same with its uranium enrichment program despite sanctions and international condemnation.

L'articolo Why the UAE’s New Nuclear Program Won’t Change Much in the Middle East proviene da InsideOver.

Stark was the reality of the actual decision-makers and operators of all but the Houthis in war-torn Yemen at the signing ceremony held in the Saudi capital Riyadh on Nov. 5. The figurehead Saudi-backed president of the internationally recognized Yemeni government Abd Rubbo Mansour Hadi was present as his government and UAE-backed Transitional Council of South Yemen signed a peace deal following months of intensive fighting for the control of Yemeni strategic cities and ports. Although the man looked incapacitated as the two strong men of Saudi Arabia, Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman (MBS) and the UAE Muhammad Bin Zayed (MBZ) Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, ran the show.

Personal Agendas Over Conflict

It is not clear how the peace deal orchestrated by the two most powerful players within the Saudi-led coalition in the four-year-old war on Yemen will help end the conflict that has generated one of the worst humanitarian disasters since World War II. While the two Gulf nations and their proxy militias have engaged in bitter fighting for territorial control, Houthi rebels and the Yemeni national army have scored major advances and victories in recent months. Last September alone, three Saudi-backed and coalition brigades fell to the Houthis and thousands of soldiers and proxy fighters surrendered in a humiliating defeat in the Jizan province close to the Yemeni borders with Saudi Arabia. It was then reported that MBS kept the humiliatingly embarrassing news away from his ailing father, King Salman of Saudi Arabia.

Following a series of military blows and a series of successful ballistic missile and suicide drown attacks against vital Saudi oil installations and airports, the United Arab Emirates drew down their troops in Yemen. Most recently, Sudan pulled out many of its forces fighting alongside the Saudis in the country amid signs of deep fractures in the Saudi-led coalition sunk deeper into the Yemeni quagmire for the fourth year running with no sign of a decisive victory yet. In August, the Yemeni separatist movement, backed by MBZ, which seeks self-rule in southern Yemen, targeted government forces as they seized their interim seat in the strategic port city of Aden. The bloody clashes sounded alarm bells in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, raised fears of further undermining the already fractured anti-Houthi alliance along with any chances for working out a negotiated settlement to the catastrophic war in Yemen which has drawn mounting international outrage and criticism.

Therefore, this week’s peace deal between the Yemeni government and the separatists seeking an autonomous rule in the south, seems more of an effort to unite forces and close ranks against their main enemy in Yemen, the Iranian-backed Houthis who reign supreme in the capital Sanaa and other parts in the north. However, the Saudi Crown Prince described the agreement as a crucial step towards a political solution to end a power struggle and eventually Yemen’s bloody war. “This agreement will open a new period of stability in Yemen. The kingdom of Saudi Arabia stands with you,” the Saudi Crown Prince told the Yemeni signatories at the ceremony in Riyadh aired on state television.  Despite this optimistic rhetoric, MBS himself failed to explain how this agreement will effectively help end the war in Yemen at large; that is unless he was referring merely to the southern part of the country and the Saudi-Emirati power struggle there.

Main Points of the Peace Deal

The ‘loosely worded and open to interpretation’ agreement, if successfully implemented on the ground, states that all military and security forces will be incorporated into the defence and interior ministries, introducing a government reshuffle to include the separatists with equal representation, and their armed forces will be placed under government control. It does little more than solve two short-term problems; It prevents a war-within-a-war between the southern separatists and Hadi’s government, and provides more credibility to any future government negotiations with the Houthis.

The UN special envoy for Yemen, Martin Griffiths, congratulated the two sides on the deal. “The signing of this agreement is an important step for our collective efforts to advance a peaceful settlement to the conflict in Yemen,” he said in a statement. “Listening to southern stakeholders is important to the political efforts to achieve peace in the country.”

More realistically, the peace agreement will help the Saudis and Emiratis to refocus on fighting the Houthis on Saudi Arabia’s border, and minimize systematic, painful and embarrassing rebel missile and drone attacks on Saudi cities, airfields, military and oil installations which have remarkably increased both scale and damage-wise in recent months. This is due to seriously shake the Saudis self-confidence and their trust in the massive, mainly US-supplied arsenal that has cost the oil-rich Kingdom trillions of dollars and abysmally failed to shoot down cheap-to-buy Houthi killer drones.

L'articolo Deal Unites Yemeni Government and Separatists Against Houthis proviene da InsideOver.

For some time, Mohammed bin Zayed – Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and de facto leader of the United Arab Emirates – has stood out as one of the main supporters of the anti-Iranian stance adopted by President Trump, as well as a key ally of Saudi Arabia in the fight against Tehran, especially in the Yemeni civil war.

But recently something has changed between the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia regarding the war in Yemen, and with Washington in reference to Iran. The escalation of tensions in the Persian Gulf has worried the Emirates, which, although intent on maintaining strong regional and international alliances – in particular with the United States – have launched a new strategy in the region, necessary to avoid it becoming a theatre of war between Washington and Tehran, and thus safeguarding its national interests.

Barring minor adjustments, the basic objectives of the UAE would remain the same: to reduce the power of Iran and defeat the Houthis in Yemen. To change would be the methods to implement these objectives, in light of two facts which have arisen: the decision of Congress to end US involvement in the Yemen war – despite the veto posed by Mr Trump – and the growing threat from Iran.

A new strategy

Part of this new Emirati strategy would be to avoid a direct confrontation between the United States and Iran, offering itself as mediator in the tensions that are raging in the Persian Gulf. In July, the Emirates sent a delegation to Tehran to discuss maritime and regional security.

Additionally, unlike the United States and Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi has not directly accused Iran of being responsible for the incidents in June in which oil tankers off the Gulf country were attacked, pushing instead to reduce tensions through a diplomatic solution.

Another fundamental aspect is the reduction of the Emirati military presence in Yemen. In July, Abu Dhabi withdrew some troops from the governorate of Aden (located in the south of the country), and from the coastal area. Among the reasons for this is certainly international scepticism of the violence to which both sides resorted in the war in Yemen and which caused numerous civilian casualties, and also the need to gather troops in the event of the outbreak of war in the region.

Here, the Emirati strategy is very clear. The objective in Yemen remains the same and will be carried out thanks to the presence of the Emirates’ proxies – the Security Belt paramilitary forces and the Southern Transitional Council – giving precedence to diplomatic routes, which require fewer economic and military resources and improve their reputation within the international community, instead of direct intervention.

Something is changing towards Israel too. Formally, Israel and the United Arab Emirates do not have diplomatic relations; in recent years, however, the two countries are increasingly tightening links, driven by their common concerns about Iran.

In July, Israeli foreign minister Yisrael Katz visited the Gulf country, and in August the Wall Street Journal revealed that, in recent months, the United States has organized a series of secret meetings between the United Arab Emirates and Israel to strengthen anti-Iranian diplomatic, military and intelligence cooperation.

According to a recent investigation, in the last decade, the Emirates have been working to tie up an $846 million deal with Israeli entrepreneurs to buy so-called “spy planes” from Israel in order to monitor Tehran’s actions.

The reasons for the change

According to Yoel Guzansky, senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, at least three reasons would have led the Emirates to review their regional strategy.

Above all, Abu Dhabi needs to exit the Yemeni civil war, which is proving to be a drain on resources and which risks leaving an indelible stain on the country’s reputation, especially in the eyes of the United States.

Furthermore, the Emirates need to concentrate diplomatic and military efforts on Iran, with the dual objective of guaranteeing the security of the Gulf and reassuring foreign investors, which Abu Dhabi greatly relies on.

Finally, according to Guzansky, Mr Trump has proved to be an unstable ally for the Middle Eastern powers, more intent on pursuing internal political interests than in working with allies, including on matters of security. The change of the UAE’s position, therefore, is due to the awareness that the US is no longer the reliable guarantor of security that it once was, and to the Gulf Country’s need to independently guarantee its own economic interests.

L'articolo The Emirates Redesign The Middle Eastern Status Quo proviene da InsideOver.

(Cairo) – The failure of the US Senate to rally enough votes behind its latest bid to block US arms sales to both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates may further empower a Saudi-led coalition fighting the Houthi militia in Yemen.

The Senate wanted to foil plans by the administration of US President Donald Trump to sell $8.1 billion in arms to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Nevertheless, it came short on July 29 of rallying the required two-thirds majority to sabotage a veto by Trump. Trump lobbied against the Senate’s bid, warning against its effect on the global competitiveness of his country. He said last week that blocking the arms deal with Saudi Arabia could damage his country’s ties with its allies.

Saudi Arabia and the coalition it leads have been fighting the Houthi militia, an Iran proxy, for five years now. The militia overran most of Yemen, scared its legitimate government and president out of it, and threatens navigation off Yemen’s Red Sea coast and the Bab al-Mandeb Strait. Nevertheless, rights groups have been lambasting the Saudi-led coalition since it staged its war against the Houthis in 2014, accusing them of committing human rights violations, including by targeting civilian areas.

The Houthis, meanwhile, have been using Iran-supplied missiles and drones in targeting Saudi cities and airports, especially in the southern part of Saudi Arabia.

In May this year, Trump’s administration said that it would move ahead with weapons sales to Riyadh and Abu Dhabi. The US president even issued a national emergency declaration with the aim of moving ahead with the weapons sale. He warned the detractors of his policy that blocking the deal would make the war in Yemen drag on for longer and open the door for more civilian casualties.

The war in Yemen is basically between Saudi Arabia and Iran, while observers describe the Houthis as mere lackeys of Iran’s mullahs. The Trump administration has been tightening the noose around Iran since its unilateral pullout from the nuclear deal between Iran and major powers in May 2018.

Apart from some international rights groups that lash out at the US for selling more arms to Saudi Arabia, Iran is among the detractors of this US policy. On July 31, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif criticized the US for arming Saudi Arabia and allowing it to potentially acquire a nuclear weapon, despite “its involvement in the killing of US citizens”. He was probably referring to the fact that 15 of the 19 terrorists who flew passenger planes into the World Trade Center in Manhattan on September 11, 2001, were Saudi nationals.

Despite the failure of the Senate to block the aforementioned deal, Trump’s close relations with Riyadh will most likely bring him under fire. The US president relies heavily on Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, among other regional players, to rein in Tehran and bring it under control.

On July 29, 45 senators backed Trump’s veto of three congressional resolutions to block his administration’s bid to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, bypassing Congress. Forty senators voted against the president’s veto, while an additional 15 senators abstained from voting. Two additional votes had almost similar margins. Nonetheless, some senators spoke against the president’s move to bypass Congress.

Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey faulted the Trump administration’s arms sales policy to Saudi Arabia. “From the start, this administration has failed to demonstrate what kind of national security threat or ‘emergency’ from Iran warranted fast-tracking the sale of these weapons to Saudi Arabia and the UAE,” he said.

L'articolo Trump to Sell Arms to Saudi Arabia, Despite Opposition proviene da InsideOver.

Jordanian-born Princess Haya, a wife of the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed Al Maktoum, has absconded to London after it is said that she has fled for her life. She married the Sheikh in 2004, becoming his sixth wife.

Princess Haya, who went to boarding school at the prestigious Bryanston School in the UK, is believed to want to remain in England. She initially fled to Germany earlier this year to seek asylum, and it has been reported that she is now staying in an £85m townhouse in Kensington Palace Gardens, London.

A source has said that the Princess, who is the daughter of King Hussein of Jordan, is fearful of being abducted and returned to her husband. Furthermore, the UK has a close relationship with the UAE, which could potentially compromise her situation if the Sheikh demands her return.

Sources close to her have revealed that her move was prompted after she discovered “disturbing facts” about Sheikha Latifa, who attempted to flee from Dubai last year. It has been alleged that since then, Princess Haya – who had previously defended Dubai’s reputation after Latifa, one of the Sheikh’s daughters, tried to escape – has changed her stance about the case. It is believed that because of this, she started to experience hostility amongst the inner circles and no longer felt safe in Dubai.

Latifa had been planning her escape for seven years and wanted to get to the US to claim asylum. She was, however, intercepted on a yacht off the coast of India by armed men and promptly returned to Dubai in March last year.

Latifa’s friend, Tiina Jauhiainen, who had planned the escape with her and was with her at the time, said in an interview: “My hands were tied and I was taken to the side of the deck, where two men pushed me towards the water and threatened to shoot my brains out. Latifa was at the front. She kept repeating that she was seeking political asylum, but she was taken, kicking and screaming. Her last words were: ‘Don’t take me back – just shoot me here.’”

Jauhiainen said that she had no idea if Latifa was dead or alive until a photo of her was released many months later showing her sitting next to Mary Robinson, the former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. They were seated in an intimate setting in what appeared to be a private home where they were about to have a meal.

Latifa recorded a video before her escape, meant for release in the event of her capture. In it, she said that it could be the last video she made and that if the video was uploaded, then that she was either dead or “in a very, very, very bad situation.”

In the 40-minute video, she disclosed that the last time she tried to escape, she was tortured, beaten, held in solitary confinement in the dark for days on end, drugged and threatened with death. She alleged that on her father’s orders, she was jailed for over three years and that she was fearful of the same fate – if not worse – should her second escape endeavour fail.

She described her father as a “really, really disgusting, really disgusting human being” and stated that the way he is, in reality, is not what is portrayed by the media, since the media is often controlled.

She said: “A lot of people’s lives have been hurt. A lot of people tortured. A lot of people lost their lives. A lot of things happened, you know. He covers up a lot of murders. He doesn’t care – my father. He’s the worst criminal you can ever imagine in your life and he has this image of being so modern and all this bullshit.

“I have 30 brothers and sisters. He doesn’t – he only puts the pictures and he has his public image like he’s a family man. That’s all bullshit. He doesn’t. It’s just PR.”

She also claimed that her sister, Shamsa, who has not been seen since she also tried to escape in 2000, was kept drugged up most of the time and closely guarded. Shamsa was said to be in a “bad state” after her father’s minders kidnapped her off the streets of London and returned her to Dubai.

Latifa expressed that she wanted to get a passport once she left Dubai and to have freedom; she had not been allowed to keep a passport before. She also hoped that she would eventually be able to rescue Shamsa.

L'articolo Why Do Princesses Keep Fleeing Dubai? proviene da InsideOver.

Princesses locked in towers by tyrannical fathers with no way of reaching the outside world may appear to be makings of fairy tales, but for princesses of the Gulf States of Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (UAE), this is all too commonly a reality. Far from waiting longingly for Prince Charming to save them from their sorry state, these women are being imprisoned, tortured, abducted and executed for trying to flee from the dictatorships of their own families and their prophesized lineage. 

Described by missing UAE Princess of Dubai, Sheikha Latifa bint Mohammed al-Maktoum, as living life in a gilded cage, the daughters of some of the world’s richest and most powerful men are brought up in lives of luxury, from skiing trips and tropical holidays, to lavish shopping sprees and designer goods. The illusion of the seemingly free, opulent lives they lead ends abruptly once the women, often very well educated, reach their teenage years. At the age most young women are experiencing their first taste of independence, marriages are being arranged, and autonomy withdrawn for these daughters of royalty. 

In a chilling video declaration made by Sheikha Latifa bint Mohammed al-Maktoum before her infiltrated escape attempt, Latifa mentions her 30 siblings, including three full siblings and two half-sisters with the same name. Her older full sister, Shamsa, she claims, lives “drugged and monitored, day and night” in their palace, following her own bid for freedom, which resulted in her capture in Cambridge, UK in 2000. Shamsa has not been seen in public since, and Latifa and her siblings, the children of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the Prime Minister of the UAE, live a “very restricted life” in which their every action is reported back to their father’s office via their drivers and staff. 

“I hope this video gets deleted and we’re all okay,” states Latifa towards the end of the 40-minute long video. “My father is the worst criminal you can ever imagine in your life. He doesn’t care. They’re not going to take me back alive.” 

Latifa claims she previously tried to escape in 2000, before she had access to the internet, but was captured at the border and spent three years and four months in prison. Whilst this can’t be verified, her accounts of torture whilst in prison, including being exposed to or withdrawn from light for days on end, and being starved and beaten, correlate with others who have suffered a similar fate at the hands of the UAE regime. 

Ending the video, seemingly filmed by herself, Latifa calls her father a “pathetic, pathetic human who doesn’t scare me” and assures that her escape attempt, which has been two decades in the making, will either end with her freedom or her “not making it out alive”. Either way, she says, the video will go some way to tell her story and the story of her sister. 

Latifa hasn’t been seen since, apart from appearing in three low-resolution images, which were released in December 2018, showing Latifa sat beside former Irish President Mary Robinson in a meeting allegedly arranged by one of her father’s wives, Princess Haya. Her family claim she is ‘troubled’ and ‘mentally unwell’ – a message reiterated by Mary Robinson, following her meeting with Latifa, which received outcry from Human Rights groups.

Despite her alleged involvement in arranging the meeting with Mary Robinson to portray Latifa as safe and content in the media, Princess Haya, the sixth wife of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, has now also fled the UAE regime, after it emerged on 3rd June 2019 that she was seeking asylum in London, England. According to a BBC report, Princess Haya, 45 – who married the Sheikh, 69, in 2004, becoming his “junior wife” – initially fled to Germany to seek asylum, but has been staying in their London mansion whilst preparing for a legal battle at the high court in the UK. The Princess is thought to have “uncovered disturbing facts” about Princess Latifa’s return, and has fled her husband for fear of her life. 

Tiina Jauhiainen, Latifa’s close friend and personal trainer, helped plan her escape, and fled Dubai with her, travelling by jetski to a yacht which awaited them to travel to India before its interception by Indian commando forces. Speaking to InsideOver, she urged readers to post under the hashtag #FreeLatifa and to visit their website, which aims to raise awareness of the Princess’ capture. “There is a petition on the website which readers can sign and share to join in the campaign for Latifa’s freedom,” Tiina added. “Readers can also follow and support the campaign on social media, where we post updates on Latifa’s capture.” 

Haya, Latifa and Shamsa aren’t the only women to suffer at the hands of their elite families; Princess Mishaal bint Fahd al Saud, daughter of Fahd bin Muhammed bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, a former governor of Saudi Arabia was executed on her grandfather’s orders at the age of 19 in 1977, for engaging in a relationship with Khaled al-Sha’er Mulhallal, then Saudi ambassador in Lebanon, who was beheaded by one of the Princesses male relatives after Mishaal’s execution. 

Princess Alanoud Al Fayez was married to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at the age of 15. She escaped in 2001, after the King had divorced her for only having daughters, and seized the passports of her three daughters without her knowing. She fled to London where she was granted asylum. 

On April 11 2017, Dina Ali Lasloom, also of Saudi Arabia, was captured and detained at Manila Airport in the Philippines, after trying to reach Australia to seek asylum. She posted a video on Twitter claiming that she would be killed upon her return to Saudi. She has not been seen since, and is believed to be in a Saudi women’s prison, released to male guardians, or deceased.

L'articolo The Gulf State’s Missing Princess proviene da InsideOver.

The Iranian nuclear debacle may have replaced Qatar as the topic du jour in the Middle East, but if the pressure on Doha has changed, it has only worsened. Qatar’s already-complicated relationship with its neighbors and the United States leave it in political limbo, unable to entirely control its own fate yet also unable to sit back and idly watch from the sidelines.

In 2017, Saudi Arabia and the UAE successfully convinced the other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council to cut all diplomatic ties with the miniscule nation. They argued, and still maintain, that Doha is to blame for the spread of terrorism. Citing Qatar’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood in particular, the G.C.C. painted a portrait of the small nation as the world’s leading exporter of terror. Although Qatar admitted that it had, at times, given financial backing to the Muslim Brotherhood – a group that is actually a political party in Jordan – it denied all claims that it supported Daesh or al-Qaeda.

Doha’s official response is that Saudi Arabia doesn’t approve of Qatar – Iran relations, and considering the evidence, that seems to be the more pressing concern that Saudi Arabia and the UAE share. It was far more politically expedient to lambast Qatar as a terrorist-backer than to unravel the intricacies of its relationship with Iran. On the global stage, it’s easier to sell the idea, and the urgency of it, that Qatar is to blame for the region’s terrorism struggles. Looking at the matter more closely, however, it becomes clear that Iran is the main sticking point, as evidenced in a list of demands the GCC states delivered to Qatar.

In order to restore diplomatic ties, Qatar’s neighbors provided a list of 13 demands, which it promptly refused. Saudi Arabia temporarily suspended those demands in lieu of Doha agreeing to uphold six principles which included combatting terrorism and ending interference in the internal affairs of other nations. When Qatar also refused to agree to these demands for the sake of preserving its sovereignty, the original 13-point list was brought back to the table. At the top of the list? Iran.

It’s geographic proximity to Iran and an economic reliance on natural gas have forced Qatar into some complicated relationships over the past few decades. During the Iran – Iraq War, for example, it financially supported Saddam Hussein. Immediately following the war, it amicably resolved a dispute over the ownership of the world’s largest natural gas reserve. This field which predominantly lies beneath the Persian Gulf and Iran, became the bedrock between Iran – Qatar relations.

The two countries often cooperate on new drilling initiatives, such as Qatar offering Iran help in 2014 to properly extract gas from the South Pars field. Located entirely on the Iranian side of the gulf, this section of the reserve could have been easily ignored by Qatar. However, superior drilling technology and advancements have led to Qatar outpacing Iran three to one in extractions, leading to the economic disparity between the nations. Still, Doha helps Iran when it can, in order to ensure the stability of the field.

Iran and Qatar have begun forging stronger trade bonds since both countries have been politically excommunicated from the region. Following a 2016 attack on Saudi diplomatic missions in Iran, Doha was the last Arab nation to recall its ambassador and issue a condemnation. A year later, after its neighbors had rebuked it, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani extended a helping hand with daily shipments of food supplies. Critically, he offered Iranian airspace to Qatar, something that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt have been denying it. With Iranian airspace access, Qatar is able to continue flights to Europe and the Americas, with hefty fees paid to Tehran, of course.

The Qatari ambassador to Iran quickly returned to his post, and soon, the countries began to help each other more with initiatives, such as a joint chamber of commerce. This provides a place for Iranian money to flow, since many of its neighbors no longer accept it.

Qatar is unique with its relationship with Iran, and the fact that it hosts the region’s largest US military base. Thanks to the al-Udeid airbase, it is incredibly difficult for Doha to incur any ire from Washington. As might be expected, it has benefited from this by generally enjoying US support – after all, there is a vested interest in keeping the country stable, at least politically. The military partnership with the US has seen Qatar fighting on the opposite side of Iran in the Yemen Civil War, another interesting tangle in its political relationships.

In the Middle East, there are few countries with as many complicated alliances as Qatar. Although it is on the GCC black list, it still fights alongside it in Yemen. Even though it hosts an expansive US base, it works closer with Iran than Saudi Arabia. Many factors in the political equation simply don’t make sense on face value, yet all of them combined afford Qatar the opportunity to perhaps broker peace between the Trump Administration and Tehran.

Both Saudi Arabia and the US recently courted the Qatari emir over the Iranian nuclear squabble. It has the political power to possibly bring both nations together. On the flip side, if Qatar simply does nothing but ride the status quo, it faces the very real possibility of war between the United States of America and Iran. If such a war were to breakout, the al-Udeid airbase would make a perfect location for launching operations, something Doha certainly does not want. As the conflict between Washington and Tehran escalates, Qatar’s position becomes more precarious and even dangerous. 

L'articolo Qatar’s Web of Geopolitical Relationships Threaten its Stability proviene da InsideOver.

(Damascus) After a series of denials and confusing reports from the UAE regarding the fire that broke out on four commercials ships, including two Saudi vessels, spreading to six other ships off the coast of Fujairah two days ago. WAM, the official UAE news agency, confirmed the incidents which still remain shrouded in mystery. Was it a mere accident? Or a deliberate act of sabotage? Or a message from Iran in response to escalating tension in the Persian Gulf, and a build up of US military presence in order to force Iran back to the negotiating table regarding its nuclear programme?

This embarrassing situation for the USA’s main allies in the region was mirrored by the contradictory and confusing news on a very major accident in the town of Fujairah on the Gulf of Oman in the UAE which started circulating on the afternoon of May 12. What is now confirmed is that there were several explosions in the Fujairah port area, and as a result, at least seven tankers were set on fire.

Iran was quick to refute initial statements regarding the accident, issued by UAE officials and the media, at first denying the whole story and claiming it was based on rumours and “fake news”, insisting that nothing had happened, and that the port was working without having had any accidents of any kind, let alone a series of explosions and fires. Later on, however, the UAE admitted that there had in fact been accidents, describing them as “acts of sabotage.”

Following the initial UAE denial, Iranian PRESS TV provided even greater evidence to the contrary, by identifying the tankers hit by explosions. One of its reports stated: “Despite the UAE government’s denial, witnesses have emphasized that the blasts have taken place and some media sources have gone even further, identifying the specific oil tankers hit by the explosions by their hull numbers as follows:

Crude oil tanker AMJAD, IMO 9779800, dwt 300000, built 2017, flag Saudi Arabia.
Crude oil tanker AL MARZOQAH, IMO 9165762, dwt 105084, built 1999, flag Saudi Arabia.
Product tanker MIRAJ, IMO 9394741, dwt 7414, built 2007, flag Dominica.
Product tanker A MICHEL, IMO 9177674, dwt 6711, built 2007, flag UAE..
Product tanker FNSA 10, IMO 9432074, dwt 6453, built 2007, flag UAE.

Among the damaged tankers was one VLCC, one Aframax and three smaller tankers, most likely bunkering tankers. What happened exactly, how bad were the explosions and fire, if there was any, and what definition can be applied to this claimed “act of sabotage” is still anyone’s guess. Both the incident and emerging information raise more questions than they give answers.

Some analysts have gone as far as to suggest that what happened near the port city of Al Fujairah might spark military action against Iran, by the USA and its allies in the Gulf, particularly Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, where the US Fifth Fleet is based.

Such interpretations and viewpoints base much of their analysis on the growing US military buildup in recent weeks, including more aircraft carriers and a squadron of the latest version of strategic B-52 bombers that have been dispatched to Al Aideed, now recognised as the largest US base outside America. This discourse is supported by the heated exchanges between Washington and Tehran, as well as by the tightening US-led blockade and threatening to prevent of Iranian oil from being exported.

The main importers of Iranian oil are China, India and Turkey, who have so far refused to comply with American sanctions. The deadline for lifting US exemptions regarding Iranian oil, gas and petrochemical exports few days ago, with no further progress having been made. Tehran responded to the American threat with a threat of its own; “If we are not allowed to export our oil, no one else will be able to do so. No country shall replace and take our share in the oil markets, at any cost, even if that means shutting down the Straits of Hormuz completely”, Iranian officials have reiterated on various occasions.

Further reciprocated measures, some of which daring and precarious soon followed. As the US issued a presidential decree declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, a core component of the far-reaching arm and of Iran’s military forces a “terrorist organisation”, Iran immediately responded by declaring US forces in the region as “terrorists”, and US regional bases as potential targets. Tehran went on to announce it was pulling out from some of its obligations regarding its nuclear deal with the West.

Despite the CIA’s advice and warnings to the Trump administration of the uncontrollable results and dangers of any military confrontation with Iran, there are members of the administration close to Trump who have been pushing him towards the abyss of such a potentially catastrophic confrontation. Any minor incident, including that of the oil tankers off the UAE coast, could be used as a pretext to attack Tehran. The experiences of Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya clearly demonstrate the regrettable, yet true fact, that it isn’t difficult to destroy a nations and kill millions of civilians in wars based upon a “bunch of lies”.

L'articolo Rising Tension in the Persian Gulf Between UAE and Iran proviene da InsideOver.

Majed Alraeesi is a political analyst for a United Arab Emirates-based think-tank, which specializes in terrorist groups andcounter-terrorism strategies. He holds a degree in international law from the University of the United Arab Emirates, and is very influential in his home country, with over 150 thousand followers on Twitter. He defines the UAE as “United Against Extremism” in his profile. I interviewed him to understand what the intentions of the UAE are in receiving the first visit from Pope Francis in the Arabian Peninsula, and how his country plans to tackle religious extremism and political repression in the region.

What does the United Arab Emirates hope to achieve with a Pope’s first visit in the Arab Gulf?

The historic visit of His Holiness Pope Francis of the Catholic Church carries a humanitarian message of peace and coexistence for the world. His visit comes at a time when we are witnessing increasing political, religious, and ethnic conflicts. To solve these rising tensions, the values of fraternity, unity, and tolerance are needed. In the United Arab Emirates, the start of each year is marked with a special name. In 2019, the UAE aimed to honour the legacy of our founding father – Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan – who believed in freedom of religion and political pluralism. We called this year “The Year of Tolerance.” The Pope’s invitation to the UAE is honouring this tradition.

There are currently almost 1 million Catholics living in the United Arab Emirates, most of them immigrants, and the UAE has been praised for the construction of a second Catholic Church and raising wages for immigrants, contrary to most other Arab Gulf nations.  But many critics suggest this is merely a publicity stunt, and that Christians and non-Muslims in the UAE do not enjoy the same rights as Muslims, for example – they do not have political representation and there are still forbidden practices, like apostasy – what is your response to these criticisms?

The UAE is home to about 10 million people from different nationalities and religions. Our nation prides itself in treating all of our foreigners equally, and in doing so we have built many churches in Abu Dhabi. You’d be surprised to know that in 1992, the historian and writer Peter Heller discovered that in the Sir Bani Yas Island there was a church dating back to the 7th century AD. It was 1,400 years old, and he had wondered how the leader of a Muslim nation, Sheikh Zayed at the time, would accept such an archaeological discovery. People were speculating that it would have embarrassed him in front of his people. Heller, therefore, wondered if he should have kept it secret from the Sheikh. The following day, Sheikh Zayed asked Heller why he looked so anxious, and Heller at that point admitted: “We have discovered the signs of a Christian monastery.” Sheikh Zayed reassured him, by saying: “And what prevented our ancestors from being Christian before becoming Muslim?” He told Heller there was nothing to worry about and then ordered his team to preserve the monastery, as a sign of respect towards Christianity. This anecdote is enough to respond to those who question the UAE’s intentions.

What is your explanation on the recent case of Matthew Hedges – the British academic jailed with a life sentence for espionage and later granted clemency – which has raised many critics to suggest this shed light on political repression in the UAE?

The UAE and Britain share strategic ties, but they also protect their own national security. Matthew Hedges’s case was about a crime that affected the security and sovereignty of our nation. It was not a human rights issue or a matter of opinion. Hedges admitted during the trial he had collected sensitive and confidential information about the UAE for foreign intelligence services. The case was proved unambiguously, with hard evidence and his own confession. He had received instructions from a foreign agency to collect information on a number of sensitive issues. The information gathered by the convict could not have been classified as a simple study conducted by a researcher seeking to obtain some innocuous knowledge for academic purposes. Unfortunately, Hedges exploited the openness of our government to foreign researchers, by compromising our national security. After his conviction, our president issued a pardon during our “National Day”, when such pardons are extended to our prisoners to give them an opportunity to correct their ways.

What is the difference between the UAE’s view of Islam, and that of other nations in the Arabian Peninsula, like Saudi Arabia?

Like most religions, Islam is a religion that promotes peace, love, and universal goodness. Unfortunately, our religion has been misinterpreted by the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood, who use it for political purposes, by spreading division in Muslim countries. Even in the UAE, we weren’t immune from Brotherhood’s divisive activities, especially through its sponsor – the Qatari government. The UAE rejects extremism and the use of Islam for political purposes. Many Arab countries were affected by the Muslim Brotherhood’s advances, but it must be acknowledged that there is a wave of change in these same countries demanding an end to their destructive ideology.

How does the UAE intend to show the Western and Christian world that it is a better ally than Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood?

The blockade on Qatar by the UAE and Saudi Arabia was due to its support towards terrorism and extremism in various Arab countries, including Egypt, Syria and Libya. Qatar’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood is also one of the main causes behind the current European refugee crises. The people were displaced and their homes were destroyed due to the conflicts promoted by their pan-Islamist ideology. Both Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood distorted the true meaning of Islam in the region. Imam Al-Qaradawi, an extremist close to Qatar’s ruling family, called for the so-called Arab Spring, which turned millions into refugees and left thousands dead. European countries should pay attention to Qatar’s policies of supporting extremist practices, and pressure the nations who work with them to abandon them. Qatar shows a liberal image to the West, while it promotes political Islam in the East. Their country’s activities are facilitated by its state media channels and public relations offices, on which Qatar relies heavily in Europe and the United States. Also, Europe should be wary of certain “charitable” organizations and financial operations, which act as a cover for the Muslim Brotherhood’s fanatical activities. These kinds of organizations are among the dangerous tools used by terrorist groups to spread their ideology and to recruit their youth, who are later sent to war zones to fight for Qatar’s national interests – as we have recently seen in the case of Libya.

L'articolo “With the Pope’s Visit, the UAE Wants to Send a Message of Tolerance and Peace” proviene da InsideOver.