Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Hezbollah flips the script and says that Israel does the “Red Prince’s” bidding

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah gave Mohammed Bin Salman the dishonorable distinction of supposedly being able to control Iran’s hated Zionist foe, which is the clearest signal yet that Tehran considers the “Red Prince” to be an unprecedented threat to the Islamic Republic.

Andrew Korybko

Published

on

6,111 Views

It’s no secret that Iran and Saudi Arabia hate one another for reasons that are too numerous to describe in the course of this analysis, though which have been exploited by both the US and Israel to their collective divide-and-rule ends, so in and of itself there’s nothing strange about Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah trash-talking Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, though this time the polemics were unprecedented because of the stunning role reversal that they represent.

Instead of Saudi Arabia being under the control of Israel, Nasrallah implied that it’s actually Israel which is under the control of the Kingdom’s “Red Prince” when he spoke about how Riyadh is trying to incite Tel Aviv to attack Lebanon by bribing it with billions of dollars, some of which it could be assumed might come from the upwards of $800 billion in assets that Mohammed Bin Salman might seize from his country’s oligarchs.

Hezbollah has a reputation for being accurate and sincere with its statements, so it shouldn’t be dismissed that what Nasrallah just warned about might actually be on the brink of happening if Riyadh and Tel Aviv are indeed holding talks on this scenario, though he added that he doesn’t think that Israel will ultimately go through with it because of the high price that it would pay if it did.

In any case, what’s important to dwell on is that Hezbollah — and by extent, it can logically be presumed Iran, as well — believes that the 32-year-old future King holds tremendous power in being able to control the group’s hated Zionist foe, unlike his predecessors who it was claimed (and convincingly seen) acted on its behalf.

Given that Nasrallah isn’t known for being careless with his words, one should accept that there is a very serious message that Hezbollah and its Iranian ally intend to send to all of their Resistance supporters by saying this, and it’s namely that the “Red Prince” is one of the most dangerous threats to the world.

Mohammed Bin Salman did indeed commence the disastrous War on Yemen that’s already claimed over 10,000 lives and consequently contributed to one of the world’s worst ongoing humanitarian crises, and he also has obscene amounts of blood on his hands for his clandestine involvement in the War on Syria since becoming the Saudi Defense Minister in early 2015, but up until now he was always considered as a Zionist tool and in no sense capable of controlling actors as powerful as Netanyahu.

What’s changed in the years since is that the “Red Prince” just undertook an unparalleled power grab over the weekend in centralizing his authority over the country and cunningly overcoming the divided decision-making process of the Kingdom’s royal court by jailing the most influential members of his family and the Saudi oligarchy who oppose him on the pretext of an anti-corruption campaign, all with the full support of the national security services.

From Feudalism To The Future: How the “Red Prince’s” “Revolution” could modernize The Monarchy

Iran considers this to be a disturbing change in the regional balance of power because it removes all prior “checks and balances” to Saudi activity abroad by placing Riyadh’s foreign and military policies solely in the hands of the “Red Prince”, thus making the country an even more formidable adversary in the sense that it now has the potential to act decisively if the choice is made.

Not only does this mean that Saudi Arabia could behave more unpredictably, but that there’s less of a chance that any of Tehran’s traditional efforts to dissuade Riyadh with its credible deterrence will succeed, because they no longer have to convince just a couple of influential and easily impressionable princes out of several hundred of them that Iran means business in order to disrupt Saudi Arabia’s decision-making capability and give it second thoughts about whatever it might be planning to do, but Iran now faces the much more difficult challenge of only swaying the notoriously stubborn Mohammed Bin Salman if it hopes to ever restrain Riyadh in the future.

Having said that, it appears at this moment that it’s a lot less likely that the “Red Prince” will carry through on his regional threats against Iran and its interests because it’s so important for him right now to concentrate on securing his power grab and ensuring the continued loyalty of the military and security services, which is why a lot of what Mohammed Bin Salman says right now should be considered as internally directed and nothing more than a young firebrand letting off a lot of hot air.

What the “Red Prince” really wants to do is revolutionize his Kingdom by taking it out of feudalism and into the future through a combination of socio-economic and religious reforms initiated by his Vision 2030 public works project, a large chunk of which it can be assumed could end up being funded by seized oligarchic assets (hence his sobriquet), and it’s this long-term desire to correct Saudi Arabia’s structural weaknesses that Iran sees as the most destabilizing development in upsetting the regional balance of power.

Instead of continuing along its downward trajectory and eventually imploding in an orgy of extremist, sectarian, and generational violence as oil funds dry up and the Kingdom’s many domestic problems become unmanageable, Iran would have to possibly contend with a much stronger enemy than it had previously imagined if the “Red Prince’s” “revolution” is successful, which is still a big if and could conceivably be offset in the timeframe that it needs for making tangible progress.

It’s for these reasons why Iran and its Hezbollah ally see Mohammed Bin Salman as such a threat and handed him the dishonorable distinction of supposedly being able to control Israel, with the expectation that this dramatic message could convey to their Resistance supporters just how serious of a long-term threat the “Red Prince” is to their regional vision of peace and stability in the Mideast.

On the other hand, this message might be interpreted by Iran’s American and Israeli enemies as confirmation of Mohammed Bin Salman’s future geopolitical potential, and therefore prompt them to support him even more than before, which is important to keep in mind since it might be what’s needed for the US “deep state” to put aside its discomfiture over his game-changing Great Power partnerships with China and Russia in throwing their full support behind the “Red Prince” as the ultimate anti-Iranian counterweight for “containing” the Islamic Republic.

DISCLAIMER: The author writes for this publication in a private capacity which is unrepresentative of anyone or any organization except for his own personal views. Nothing written by the author should ever be conflated with the editorial views or official positions of any other media outlet or institution.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Clinton-Yeltsin docs shine a light on why Deep State hates Putin (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 114.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Bill Clinton and America ruled over Russia and Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Yeltsin showed little love for Russia and more interest in keeping power, and pleasing the oligarchs around him.

Then came Vladimir Putin, and everything changed.

Nearly 600 pages of memos and transcripts, documenting personal exchanges and telephone conversations between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, were made public by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Dating from January 1993 to December 1999, the documents provide a historical account of a time when US relations with Russia were at their best, as Russia was at its weakest.

On September 8, 1999, weeks after promoting the head of the Russia’s top intelligence agency to the post of prime minister, Russian President Boris Yeltsin took a phone call from U.S. President Bill Clinton.

The new prime minister was unknown, rising to the top of the Federal Security Service only a year earlier.

Yeltsin wanted to reassure Clinton that Vladimir Putin was a “solid man.”

Yeltsin told Clinton….

“I would like to tell you about him so you will know what kind of man he is.”

“I found out he is a solid man who is kept well abreast of various subjects under his purview. At the same time, he is thorough and strong, very sociable. And he can easily have good relations and contact with people who are his partners. I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the nearly 600 pages of transcripts documenting the calls and personal conversations between then U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, released last month. A strong Clinton and a very weak Yeltsin underscore a warm and friendly relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

Then Vladimir Putin came along and decided to lift Russia out of the abyss, and things changed.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel

Here are five must-read Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges from with the 600 pages released by the Clinton Library.

Via RT

Clinton sends ‘his people’ to get Yeltsin elected

Amid unceasing allegations of nefarious Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, the Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges reveal how the US government threw its full weight behind Boris – in Russian parliamentary elections as well as for the 1996 reelection campaign, which he approached with 1-digit ratings.

For example, a transcript from 1993 details how Clinton offered to help Yeltsin in upcoming parliamentary elections by selectively using US foreign aid to shore up support for the Russian leader’s political allies.

“What is the prevailing attitude among the regional leaders? Can we do something through our aid package to send support out to the regions?” a concerned Clinton asked.

Yeltsin liked the idea, replying that “this kind of regional support would be very useful.” Clinton then promised to have “his people” follow up on the plan.

In another exchange, Yeltsin asks his US counterpart for a bit of financial help ahead of the 1996 presidential election: “Bill, for my election campaign, I urgently need for Russia a loan of $2.5 billion,” he said. Yeltsin added that he needed the money in order to pay pensions and government wages – obligations which, if left unfulfilled, would have likely led to his political ruin. Yeltsin also asks Clinton if he could “use his influence” to increase the size of an IMF loan to assist him during his re-election campaign.

Yeltsin questions NATO expansion

The future of NATO was still an open question in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin provide an illuminating backdrop to the current state of the curiously offensive ‘defensive alliance’ (spoiler alert: it expanded right up to Russia’s border).

In 1995, Yeltsin told Clinton that NATO expansion would lead to “humiliation” for Russia, noting that many Russians were fearful of the possibility that the alliance could encircle their country.

“It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner? They ask. I ask it too: Why do you want to do this?” Yeltsin asked Clinton.

As the documents show, Yeltsin insisted that Russia had “no claims on other countries,” adding that it was “unacceptable” that the US was conducting naval drills near Crimea.

“It is as if we were training people in Cuba. How would you feel?” Yeltsin asked. The Russian leader then proposed a “gentleman’s agreement” that no former Soviet republics would join NATO.

Clinton refused the offer, saying: “I can’t make the specific commitment you are asking for. It would violate the whole spirit of NATO. I’ve always tried to build you up and never undermine you.”

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia turns Russia against the West

Although Clinton and Yeltsin enjoyed friendly relations, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia tempered Moscow’s enthusiastic partnership with the West.

“Our people will certainly from now have a bad attitude with regard to America and with NATO,” the Russian president told Clinton in March 1999. “I remember how difficult it was for me to try and turn the heads of our people, the heads of the politicians towards the West, towards the United States, but I succeeded in doing that, and now to lose all that.”

Yeltsin urged Clinton to renounce the strikes, for the sake of “our relationship” and “peace in Europe.”

“It is not known who will come after us and it is not known what will be the road of future developments in strategic nuclear weapons,” Yeltsin reminded his US counterpart.

But Clinton wouldn’t cede ground.

“Milosevic is still a communist dictator and he would like to destroy the alliance that Russia has built up with the US and Europe and essentially destroy the whole movement of your region toward democracy and go back to ethnic alliances. We cannot allow him to dictate our future,” Clinton told Yeltsin.

Yeltsin asks US to ‘give Europe to Russia’

One exchange that has been making the rounds on Twitter appears to show Yeltsin requesting that Europe be “given” to Russia during a meeting in Istanbul in 1999. However, it’s not quite what it seems.

“I ask you one thing,” Yeltsin says, addressing Clinton. “Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be in the business of Europeans.”

However, the request is slightly less sinister than it sounds when put into context: The two leaders were discussing missile defense, and Yeltsin was arguing that Russia – not the US – would be a more suitable guarantor of Europe’s security.

“We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles,” Yeltsin told Clinton.

Clinton on Putin: ‘He’s very smart’

Perhaps one of the most interesting exchanges takes place when Yeltsin announces to Clinton his successor, Vladimir Putin.

In a conversation with Clinton from September 1999, Yeltsin describes Putin as “a solid man,” adding: “I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

A month later, Clinton asks Yeltsin who will win the Russian presidential election.

“Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He’s a democrat, and he knows the West.”

“He’s very smart,” Clinton remarks.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

New Satellite Images Reveal Aftermath Of Israeli Strikes On Syria; Putin Accepts Offer to Probe Downed Jet

The images reveal the extent of destruction in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


An Israeli satellite imaging company has released satellite photographs that reveal the extent of Monday night’s attack on multiple locations inside Syria.

ImageSat International released them as part of an intelligence report on a series of Israeli air strikes which lasted for over an hour and resulted in Syrian missile defense accidentally downing a Russian surveillance plane that had 15 personnel on board.

The images reveal the extent of destruction on one location struck early in attack in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport. On Tuesday Israel owned up to carrying out the attack in a rare admission.

Syrian official SANA news agency reported ten people injured in the attacks carried out of military targets near three major cities in Syria’s north.

The Times of Israel, which first reported the release of the new satellite images, underscores the rarity of Israeli strikes happening that far north and along the coast, dangerously near Russian positions:

The attack near Latakia was especially unusual because the port city is located near a Russian military base, the Khmeimim Air Force base. The base is home to Russian jet planes and an S-400 aerial defense system. According to Arab media reports, Israel has rarely struck that area since the Russians arrived there.

The Russian S-400 system was reportedly active during the attack, but it’s difficult to confirm or assess the extent to which Russian missiles responded during the strikes.

Three of the released satellite images show what’s described as an “ammunition warehouse” that appears to have been completely destroyed.

The IDF has stated their airstrikes targeted a Syrian army facility “from which weapons-manufacturing systems were supposed to be transferred to Iran and Hezbollah.” This statement came after the IDF expressed “sorrow” for the deaths of Russian airmen, but also said responsibility lies with the “Assad regime.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also phoned Russian President Vladimir Putin to express regret over the incident while offering to send his air force chief to Russia with a detailed report — something which Putin agreed to.

According to Russia’s RT News, “Major-General Amikam Norkin will arrive in Moscow on Thursday, and will present the situation report on the incident, including the findings of the IDF inquiry regarding the event and the pre-mission information the Israeli military was so reluctant to share in advance.”

Russia’s Defense Ministry condemned the “provocative actions by Israel as hostile” and said Russia reserves “the right to an adequate response” while Putin has described the downing of the Il-20 recon plane as likely the result of a “chain of tragic accidental circumstances” and downplayed the idea of a deliberate provocation, in contradiction of the initial statement issued by his own defense ministry.

Pro-government Syrians have reportedly expressed frustration this week that Russia hasn’t done more to respond militarily to Israeli aggression; however, it appears Putin may be sidestepping yet another trap as it’s looking increasingly likely that Israel’s aims are precisely geared toward provoking a response in order to allow its western allies to join a broader attack on Damascus that could result in regime change.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

“Transphobic” Swedish Professor May Lose Job After Noting Biological Differences Between Sexes

A university professor in Sweden is under investigation after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded”

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


A university professor in Sweden is under investigation for “anti-feminism” and “transphobia” after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded” and that genders cannot be regarded as “social constructs alone,” reports Academic Rights Watch.

For his transgression, Germund Hesslow – a professor of neuroscience at Lund University – who holds dual PhDs in philosophy and neurophysiology, may lose his job – telling RT that a “full investigation” has been ordered, and that there “have been discussions about trying to stop the lecture or get rid of me, or have someone else give the lecture or not give the lecture at all.”

“If you answer such a question you are under severe time pressure, you have to be extremely brief — and I used wording which I think was completely innocuous, and that apparently the student didn’t,” Hesslow said.

Hesslow was ordered to attend a meeting by Christer Larsson, chairman of the program board for medical education, after a female student complained that Hesslow had a “personal anti-feminist agenda.” He was asked to distance himself from two specific comments; that gay women have a “male sexual orientation” and that the sexual orientation of transsexuals is “a matter of definition.”

The student’s complaint reads in part (translated):

I have also heard from senior lecturers that Germund Hesslow at the last lecture expressed himself transfobically. In response to a question of transexuallism, he said something like “sex change is a fly”. Secondly, it is outrageous because there may be students during the lecture who are themselves exposed to transfobin, but also because it may affect how later students in their professional lives meet transgender people. Transpersonals already have a high level of overrepresentation in suicide statistics and there are already major shortcomings in the treatment of transgender in care, should not it be countered? How does this kind of statement coincide with the university’s equal treatment plan? What has this statement given for consequences? What has been done for this to not be repeated? –Academic Rights Watch

After being admonished, Hesslow refused to distance himself from his comments, saying that he had “done enough” already and didn’t have to explain and defend his choice of words.

At some point, one must ask for a sense of proportion among those involved. If it were to become acceptable for students to record lectures in order to find compromising formulations and then involve faculty staff with meetings and long letters, we should let go of the medical education altogether,” Hesslow said in a written reply to Larsson.

He also rejected the accusation that he had a political agenda – stating that his only agenda was to let scientific factnot new social conventions, dictate how he teaches his courses.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending