Americans are surprised at the “brutal” methods of their ally – Saudi Arabia

I have always been amazed at the feature of the American media to light up with trivial conclusions, a month after the appearance of the information occasion …
On December 24, an electronic version of the American newspaper The New York Times published the article “Why Saad Hariri Had That Strange Sojourn in Saudi Arabia”, according to which Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri in November 2017 issued a statement of intention to leave his post under strong pressure from the authorities of Saudi Arabia. According to a number of sources of the publication, on the second day of his visit to Saudi Arabia Hariri was unexpectedly summoned for conversation with officials. He was deprived of a cell phone, deprived of bodyguards. Security officers of the kingdom “pushed and insulted him.”
“Then came the greatest humiliation – he was given a prepared text of the speech about his resignation and forced to read it on Saudi TV,” the publication says. “Apparently this was the main reason why he was lured to the capital of Saudi Arabia, Riyadh, the day before, so that he resigned under pressure and made accusations against Iran, as if he were a hired servant, and not leader of a sovereign state, “the material says.
Further, Hariri was placed under home arrest in Saudi Arabia, he was forbidden to meet with his wife and children. Several Western diplomats visited him. At the same time during the meetings of the Prime Minister with them in the room there were Saudi guards. Later, Hariri was able to leave the kingdom. According to the newspaper, the initiator of these steps was the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, who sought “to limit Iran’s ambitions in the region.” He allegedly believed that Hariri “was not sufficiently obedient to his Saudi patrons.” “The prince intended to give a signal: it was time to stop strengthening Iran’s Lebanese ally, the powerful Shiite organization Hezbollah, which was the most influential political player in Lebanon,” the publication said.
“The New York Times” states that the Prince’s plans were not implemented, as “Hariri retained his post and gained new popularity, and Hezbollah became stronger than before.” According to the publication, “the harsh and perhaps clumsy methods of Saudi Arabia led to the separation of reliable allies from it,” including Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt and supporters of Hariri in Lebanon. “According to officials and analysts, Saudi Arabia can eventually get some modest concessions from Lebanon, but they probably will not be worth the diplomatic storm that has taken place,” the article says.
Here it must be added that the Saudis will not be able to make any concessions, as the Crown Prince’s diligent actions will not affect neither the program of the modernization of the Lebanese Armed Forces (it is now being carried out by Americans and French, who for some reason do not care about Hezbollah for this particular case) , nor on the flow of Saudi tourists who are accustomed to traditionally spend the summer in the sparing climate of Lebanon. Moreover, Lebanese banks experiences a renaissance due to the outflow of finances from the KSA and the UAE to their accounts due to fears of representatives of a large part of the Saudi elite, which are scared by the steps to eradicate corruption from Mohammed bin Salman.
Some American political scientists do not rule out the possibility that Saudi Arabia was trying to provoke internal unrest in Lebanon or even the outbreak of war, the publication stresses. The young crown prince of KSA, like his American allies, does not particularly understand that the methods of action in world politics are fundamentally different from the methods of doing business or the next separation of palace servants. The main principle of their current policy is unhealthy cynicism, which, unlike in past years, is also publicly demonstrated in the widest possible way. As it was recently in the UN, when Washington began to link openly its financial assistance to a particular country depending on its position in the voting on the theme of Jerusalem.
Sources of the newspaper from among the officials of Western and Arab countries “are still trying to understand what the Saudis sought by all these intrigues.”
The most interesting thing is that the young prince’s steps had no real result in the framework of the multi-way combinations, for the simple reason that simply it was not clear theoretically: there could not be any insurrection in Lebanon, only the unity of the Lebanese nation occurred, regardless of their sympathies and antipathies, plus a general outrage of all European and Arab countries. But the most important thing that Muhamed bin Salman could not understand is that the situation in Lebanon directly depends on the situation in Syria, and no even the most tough pro-Saudi politician can do anything against the backdrop of the military success of Moscow and Tehran in Syria.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *