Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Reports of Saudi Foreign Minister’s purge denied by diplomatic sources – still no word from Riyadh

Unconfirmed reports suggest that Adel al-Jubeir has been replaced as Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister by Muhammad bin Salman’s younger brother.

Published

on

6,230 Views

UPDATE: Some of the sources which originally broke the unverified story are now reporting that the initial information was not true. Riyadh has still not issued any statements on the mater.

Below is the original story:

Unconfirmed reports swirling throughout Arabic and now multi-lingual media are indicating that Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir has been purged from his job, as part of the controversial political reforms of de-facto ruler Crown Prince Muhammad  bin Salman (MBS).

Riyadh has neither confirmed nor denied the reports at this time, however seeing as they derive from typically reliable sources, it appears that in one way or another, al-Jubeir’s time has come.

Adel al-Jubeir’s diplomatic career began during a comparatively straight forward epoch in Saudi Arabia’s foreign relations. Beginning in 2007, he became the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, during George W. Bush’s second to last year in office.

In 2015, he was promoted to Foreign Minister, thus becoming only the second person to hold the position who was not a member of the House of Saud.

While most of Adel al-Jubeir’s public statements were predicable and hence not incredibly interesting–ranging from ‘Assad must go’, to the “dangers” of Iran being Iran, more recently, he accompanied King Salman during his visit to Russia. There, al-Jubeir offered some statements that may have felt foreign to a former Saudi Ambassador to the United States.

As I wrote at the time,

“Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir then offered warm words for his Russian hosts. The Saudi Foreign Minister spoke of reaching “new horizons which we couldn’t even imagine in the past” and thanked the leaders of Russian government for making this possible at many levels.

Continuing the warm tone, Al-Jubeir stated that Saudi considers Russia to be a neighbourly country as “we are not far from one another” and that furthermore, “we have shared episodes in history”.

The most important element to Al-Jubeir’s speech came next when he said that both Russia and Saudi do not interfere in the domestic issues of other nations. He further stated that both countries reject the idea of “imposing strange and alien principles unto other societies”.

While this claim is factually dubious at best seeing as Saudi is well known for spending millions on spreading Wahhabi ideology throughout the world, the intent of the statement is more important than its factual merits.

Al-Jubeir’s statement represents a clear inference to the United States, which for decades has exercised a foreign policy designed to put in friendly regimes throughout the world which are putatively modelled on the US style of governance. While Saudi has tended to support such efforts, the statement criticising the US model of foreign policy, made while in Russia, is a clear sign that even Saudi Arabia seeks to distance itself from the increasingly failed US geo-political framework.

Additionally, the statement also shows that as an ally of the US, Saudi rejects the Russiagate theory, by affirming that far from meddling in countries like the US, Russia doesn’t have an interest in modifying the internal workings of any state. In this sense, Saudi distanced its public image from the US by parsing Russian pragmatism while rejecting the mainstay of US propaganda against Russia over the last year.

In many ways this statement was the highest compliment a US ally could give to Russia. It was a clear sign that even a country as entrenched in the US geo-political system as Saudi Arabia is serious about diversifying its geo-political and geo-economic strategy”.

Saudi FM offers thinly veiled criticism of US during press conference with Sergey Lavrov

Adel al-Jubeir’s words in Moscow were indicative of the subtle but unmistakable shift in Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Policy that al-Jubeir himself may not have fully been prepared to embrace.

As a member of the ‘old guard’, he was far more comfortable threatening Lebanon, Iran and Syria than making overtures to Russia, even though Muhammad bin Salman’s rise to power is characterised by a complex attempt to attract Russian and Chinese patronage of his Vision 2030 economic expansion programme, while still retaining the US as an ally to back up anti-Iranian and anti-Houthi positions.

The fact that recently the US has told Saudi to lift the blockade on Yemen, means that actors in both Riyadh and Washington seek to exculpate themselves from the disastrous Saudi intervention (backed by the west), in the Yemen conflict. It is still not clear if this was a coordinated effort (behind the scenes) or if Washington and Riyadh are both racing against each other to wash their hands of the Yemeni blood they both played a part in shedding.

Through all of this, Adel al-Jubeir has not done anything specifically sinister other than to repeat the policies coming out of MBS’s office.

His suspected purge therefore is more likely to do with internal matters of MBS wanting to usher in a new guard that is loyal to him personally, first and foremost, than it is to do with any specific failure of al-Jubeir. Hence, it is no surprise that reports also indicate that al-Jubeir has been replaced by MBS’s younger brother Khalid bin Salman, who is in his late 20s.

Many will rush to claim that al-Jubeir has been purged due to his inability to stand-up to Donald Trump’s recent betrayal of Palestine. It is true that Palestinians have gathered to burn Saudi flags along with US and Israeli fags during the ‘Day of Rage’. However, it is MBS himself who has become ever more public about courting pro-Zionist opinion in the US and consequently the Saudi condemnation of Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem/al-Quds as an Israeli capital has been far more muted than that which is coming from the Nothern bloc of the Middle East, including Syria, Turkey, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran.

In the first post-ISIS battle between the North and South of the Middle East: The North has won

Nevertheless, if al-Jubeir has been purged, the timing works in MBS’s favour as the optics on the Arab street would to a limited degree, show that one Saudi has been forced out of a highly visible foreign policy “making” position in the wake of what the vast majority of Arabs feel is a monumental insult.

Thus, MBS has found a way to avoid doing anything for Palestine, while showing the world that something has been done. As a result, Saudi’s relationship with Russia, China and new East Asian partners may continue to expand while MBS decides if he should, in the long-term, restrain has anti-Iranian, anti-Shi’a bark to match his ultimately worthless bite.

MBS appears to have gotten what he wants–using an internationally delicate situation to continue his internal purges for no one’s gain but his own. Once again Saudi Arabia has done nothing for Palestine.

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

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Every dirty Democrat trick shows in bid to oust Kavanaugh

American democracy truly is mob rule now, and the mob is stupid, with no one taking a moment to truly consider the situation.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The most amazing thing about what is ostensibly the last minute “Hail Mary” smear campaign by the left against Judge Brett Kavanaugh is how utterly transparently partisan it is. Let’s look at the list of tactics used thus far in this very dirty escapade:

  • Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein sat on this allegation for three months, until after the confirmation hearings were over (and after no other barnstorming tactic during the confirmation hearings worked against the nominee).
  • The accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is a registered Democrat, and a feminist. RT notes that she appears to have a strong interest in politics.
  • Reports of “death threats” against Dr. Ford have been reported. This is a common feature of any anti-Trump attack, to relate him to some sort of “right-wing” radicalism. This radicalism does not exist among conservatives, but the media is determined to say otherwise.
  • Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, naturally, believes Ford’s story.
  • Every Democrat senator is in agreement that this matter should table the confirmation vote. Some Republicans were at first but appear to be backing away.
  • A woman Democrat senator,  Mazie Hirono, went on record telling men to “shut up and step up.” It seems abundantly clear that this assumes that there can only be one “step” that the men are expected to do. A second lady senator , Patty Murray of Washington, gave all men a warning against stepping off the plantation by saying “Women are watching.”
  • The Senate Republicans offered a chance for Dr Ford to testify on Monday. She refused, but now she is offering to come “next Thursday” – this is ten days later, past the October 1 start date of the US Supreme Court, and closer to the November Midterm elections.

We interrupt this list to make this point. The issues at hand are threefold.

First, the Democrats and other left-wing activists are terrified that they will lose the “Warren Court”, which is the name of the Supreme Court Justice who was a major left-wing judicial activist that enabled the Court to “legislate from the bench” along liberal policy lines since 1969. If Kavanaugh comes in, even if President Trump is somehow magically removed from office, his mark will remain on the Court for at least a generation. Of course, the removal of President Trump is predicated on the Democrats regaining control of the House, which actually looks somewhat likely if polling data is to be believed, and of course a Democrat Senate. (The actual tiny caveat that the President has done absolutely nothing which warrants impeachment will not be taken into consideration. He is to be eliminated. That is Democrat point number one, and make no mistake.)

Second, if the Judge is confirmed, it will look great on the President’s achievement list and energize his voter base even more than it already is. The result could be that the Senate expands its Republican majority, and gains Trumpian conservatives in its ranks, which would likely help the President continue his really great agenda. A defeat in the House that holds or expands GOP, again with Trumpian conservatives, would solidify this, and make it more difficult to stop Trump’s re-election and further solidification of reforms in 2020.

Third, and probably even more important, is that the possibility of a third seat getting vacated on the Court in the time period between now and 2024 is relatively high. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the oldest Justice on the Court, and she is a raving liberal. If she retires (which she promises not to do), or if she is retired by the processes of old age, Trump can score a three-peat and get a third constitutionalist justice into the Court and that will signal the closure of one of the biggest avenues of liberal activism.

To return to the list, some of the further characteristics that make this situation patently obvious are these:

  • As reported in The Duran, the smear job is looking a bit ragged around the edges as time goes by. President Trump called Dr Ford’s bluff by saying he is interested in having her come to testify and that it would be “unfortunate” if she didn’t do so. Ford’s response was as shown above, to try and delay this testimony.
  • The Hollywood “sisterhood” is on record defending Dr Ford. For them, she’s right. She said Kavanaugh did this, so she is right. And why? Because she is a woman, a feminist and a Democrat. She is one of them. It would very interesting to know if the sisterhood would stand behind a conservative woman raising such a concern against a Democrat, but we have President Clinton to show how well that all went.

This by no means concludes the list of characteristics, but as noted earlier here, anyone that does even just a little critical thinking about this can see that this issue is no moral outrage, it is strictly partisan hackery, making use of the greatest weapon against conservative men put in use over the last fifty years – the sexual allegation from a woman, who must always be believed, because the woman is always right. 

The unfortunate truth is that this tactic works. It works because most men are actually gentlemen. We honor women, and we are taught to defer to them in America, because that is what a gentleman does. Feminism takes this characteristic of men, especially in modern times who really want to make sure they treat the ladies right, and it throws it back in their face in contempt. It is so bad it even has a physiological effect on men, who are now marrying less, and having fewer kids. There are even physiological changes that result from this abuse.

Further, there is an appalling lack of critical thinking in our society. The British news site, The Independent offers a poll with questions about the Kavanaugh case. The astonishing lack of critical thinking is clearly evident as the reader votes his or her thought and then sees the results for that question. Going through the questions and observing their responses can be very illuminating.

Dr Ford is demanding an FBI investigation, but she has no date, time or location attached to the incident she accuses now-Judge Kavanaugh of perpetrating. Rush Limbaugh did a great job at showing just how absurd this demand actually is, given these glaring areas of non-knowledge and we include some of that transcript below:

What would happen, let’s say — I don’t know — in the last 10 years up to last week if any woman had walked into any FBI office in the country and said the following: “Hi. I’m here to report that I was abused 35 years ago. I was — I was — I was at a party. Uh, I was 15, a little bit to drink, and a 17-year-old guy pushed me down on top of a table and laid on top of me. And then — and then and then I think — I think — a friend came in and did something and anyway they left and I was left locked in the room. And I want to you to investigate.”

Do you think if somebody shows up at an FBI office with that story, if they show up in person with that story, that the FBI is gonna give it any time whatsoever? The agents are gonna look at each other with kind of wary eyes and they’re gonna crack silent jokes to one another. I’m not kidding. You take this out of the realm of a letter to a crazed, partisan United States senator, Dianne Feinstein, and just move this into the victim walking into an FBI office, “It was 35 years, 34 years. I’m not sure where. But I know that when I was 15, I was at a party, and some guy jumped on top of me.”

So let’s say the FBI agent decides to actually take this further and in a very respectful way says, “Well, Miss, were you raped or injured?”

“Uh, no, not really.”

“Did you report this or tell anyone at the time, 36, 35 years ago?”

“Uh, no.”

“What year was this, again, that this happened?”

“Uhhh, I’m not — I’m not sure. I think it was 1982.”

“Where did this happen?”

“I don’t know! I don’t know. I was so traumatized; I don’t remember any of it. I just remember some guy jumping on me and I was drunk and — and I don’t know. But I want you to investigate it.”

“Okay. Ma’am, were there any witnesses?”

“Just the one friend of his that pushed him off, and then they left before he could do anything.”

What would the FBI do with this, if that scenario happened in one of their field offices? I will tell you what they would do: Zip, zero, nada. And the reason for bringing it up this way is to try to shine some kind of a different light on this and try to put this kind of allegation in some kind of context. The president is handling this in a quite fascinating way. He’s saying, “I hope she shows up. I want to hear what she has to say. I really hope she shows up. I’m very interested in what she has to say. We all are. And if she shows up and if she’s credible, why, then we’re gonna have to do something about that.”

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

Latest

Russian Hierarch explains Ukrainian issue in detail (VIDEO)

A Russian Orthodox Hierarch explores the incursion of earthly politics into the life, pastoral activity and needs of the Orthodox Church.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

RT’s “Worlds Apart” interview program recently interviewed Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev), a hierarch who heads the Department of External Church Relations for the Moscow Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church. The Duran has covered the crisis in Ukraine surrounding the activity of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew I, of Constantinople, intended to create a fully independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This effort falls completely outside the normal and authorized operating procedures of the Orthodox Church, but to the lay listener it is difficult to understand what the fuss really is all about.

Metropolitan Hilarion and Oksana Boyko do an excellent job with both the answers, but more importantly, the questions, since Ms. Boyko asks the questions that someone who knows nothing about the Church might ask. This situation is completely about politics and not about the true work of the Church, and Met. Hilarion answers these questions very completely and thoroughly.

One of the really interesting points that Met. Hilarion makes is the idea that the Ecumenical Patriarch seeks to bring about the creation of a fully independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church from these four groups:

  • The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (which is canonical and which has not requested self-rule, called autocephaly
  • The Ukrainian Orthodox Church “Kyiv Patriarchate”, led by Filaret Denisenko, which is a completely schismatic group. This group, and Filaret, are leading the charge.
  • The Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous Church – another schismatic group that is not in communion with Filaret’s church
  • The Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine – and this is truly interesting, because this group is not even Orthodox, but is an Eastern Rite group under the Pope of Rome, and is in fact Roman Catholic.

The notion of bringing together such a disparity of groups is stunning to the Metropolitan, and yet he understands the motives of the men driving this idea, President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine, Patriarch Bartholomew, and Filaret Denisenko.

While the United States is not mentioned in this interview in any prominent sense, it should be noted that this move also does have strong US support as the American political leadership has been advocating for the Poroshenko government in an effort to continue to surround and isolate Russia. As we have noted elsewhere, this series of moves may well create more problems for Russia, by design.

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

Latest

James Woods Suspended From Twitter Over Satirical Meme That Could “Impact An Election”

James Woods crushes Jack Dorsey: “You are a coward, @Jack.”

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


Outspoken conservative actor James Woods was suspended from posting to Twitter over a two-month-old satirical meme which very clearly parodies a Democratic advertisement campaign. While the actor’s tweets are still visible, he is unable to post new content.

The offending tweet from July 20, features three millennial-aged men with “nu-male smiles” and text that reads “We’re making a Woman’s Vote Worth more by staying home.” Above it, Woods writes “Pretty scary that there is a distinct possibility this could be real. Not likely, but in this day and age of absolute liberal insanity, it is at least possible.”

According to screenshots provided by an associate of Woods’, Twitter directed the actor to delete the post on the grounds that it contained “text and imagery that has the potential to be misleading in a way that could impact an election.

In other words, James Woods, who has approximately 1.72 million followers, was suspended because liberals who don’t identify as women might actually take the meme seriously and not vote. 

In a statement released through associate Sara Miller, Woods said “You are a coward, @Jack,” referring to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. “There is no free speech for Conservatives on @Twitter.

Earlier this month, Woods opined on the mass-platform ban of Alex Jones, tweeting: ““I’ve never read Alex Jones nor watched any of his video presence on the internet. A friend told me he was an extremist. Believe me that I know nothing about him. That said, I think banning him from the internet is a slippery slope. This is the beginning of real fascism. Trust me.”

Nu-males everywhere non-threateningly smirk at Woods’ bad fortune…

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