According to the news agency:

“Aziz, 79, served as foreign minister and deputy prime minister and was a close adviser to the former leader.

He was sentenced to death by the Iraqi Supreme Court in 2010 for the persecution of religious parties under Saddam’s rule but was never executed.

He surrendered to US troops in 2003 shortly after the fall of Baghdad.“

“This recent death of Tariq Aziz, a high-ranking member in Saddam Hussein’s government and the foreign minister during the 1991 Gulf War, marks the end of one of the last surviving members of the Baath party’s old guard,” Ibrahim al-Marashi, an assistant professor at the Department of History at California State University in San Marcos , said.

“In his lifetime, he played a major role as foreign minister of Iraq, re-establishing ties with the United States in the 1980s, to only be arrested by the US close to 20 years later, making it to number 43 on the notorious 55 most-wanted deck of cards issued to US soldiers during the 2003 invasion of Iraq,” according to Ibrahim al-Marashi cited by Al-Jazeera.

The body of Tariq Aziz, the only Christian in Saddam Hussein’s inner circle, is already in Jordan ahead of being buried. It arrived in Jordan’s capital, Amman, early Saturday. Authorities took it to a local morgue, where Aziz’s son, Ziad, and others met it. Some Baath Party supporters chanted outside, Haaretz reports.

Ahmad Abu Safiah, one of the supporters, described Aziz as a martyred pan-Arabist hero, according to The Jordan Times.

“He is the martyr of the Baath and Arabs. We are proud of this man who is the son of Baath and Arabism and we are proud that he managed to withstand the tough times he’s seen during years of detention,” he told reporters.

Tariq Aziz body already in Jordan.

Tariq Aziz died on 5 June 2015 in al-Hussein hospital in the city of Nasiriyah, aged 79. According to his lawyer, he was being treated well in prison but suffered from ill health and simply wanted an end to his “misery”. The incarcerated Aziz suffered from depression, diabetes, heart disease, and ulcers.

T

The Regional Economic Outlook Update, released on May 5, projects that growth will increase slightly to about 3 percent in 2015 (see table). But growth rates, although rising, remain too low to reduce the region’s persistently high unemployment in a meaningful way.

“Although the region’s countries have made progress in implementing reforms, there is still more that can be done—not just to stabilize the economy but to raise economic prospects in a sustainable, inclusive manner,” Masood Ahmed, Director of the IMF’s Middle East and Central Asia Department, told reporters at a briefing in Dubai.

Moreover, he said, the recent intensification of conflicts in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen is undermining economic activity and dampening confidence, posing a significant risk to the region’s prospects.

Oil Exporters See Surpluses Erode

According to the IMF, growth in the region’s oil-exporting countries reached about 2½ percent in 2014 and is expected to remain at this level in 2015. Next year, growth is projected to rise to 3½ percent, but this forecast is predicated on the assumption that security conditions will stabilize and oil production will recover in oil exporters outside the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Despite the fact that oil prices halved between July 2014 and April 2015, oil-exporting countries have managed to keep growth steady by using the financial cushions that they have built up over the past decade, Ahmed said.

These countries are experiencing a substantial weakening of export earnings, however. The oil price decline will turn the longstanding current account surplus of the Middle Eastern and North African oil exporters into a deficit of $22 billion in 2015, with export earnings expected to be about $380 billion lower than projected before the oil price decline.

The budgets of oil-exporting countries are also severely affected by the oil price slump, with fiscal balances deteriorating to an average deficit of 8½ percent of GDP (see Chart 1). A sharp rise in spending in recent years has made budgets vulnerable to lower oil prices, Ahmed noted. “Most countries in the region cannot balance their budgets when oil prices approach $60 a barrel,” he said.

Ahmed highlighted a number of steps the region’s oil-exporting countries could take, both in response to oil price developments and for the long-term health of their economies. Since lower oil prices are expected to persist for some time, governments should begin to moderate the pace of their spending, he said. But because government spending is a key driver of non-oil growth, this fiscal consolidation should be done in a growth-friendly manner and gradually, fiscal space and available financing permitting.

Oil exporters could also seize the opportunity to reduce generalized energy subsidies—which remain large despite lower oil prices. And, given the new realities of the global oil market, it is even more urgent for these economies to begin moving away from the oil-based growth model toward a new model where economic growth and job creation are driven by a diversified private sector.

Oil Importers See Growth Pick Up, But Face Risks

The region’s oil-importing countries are seeing higher growth, owing to prudent economic management combined with a more favorable international environment, Ahmed said. Their economies have benefited from lower oil prices; however, because of limited pass-through to retail fuel prices, lower oil prices had only modest effects on reducing production costs and increasing disposable incomes.

As a group, the oil importers will likely see their growth rate increase to about 4 percent this year from about 3 percent in 2014, Ahmed said. Countries have chosen for the most part to save the gains from lower oil prices, which has helped them reduce public debt and increase international reserves (see Chart 2). Signs of confidence—such as stock market gains and a pickup in credit growth—are emerging.

But there are significant risks to this outlook, he cautioned.

Security problems and spillovers from regional conflicts risk undermining the nascent recovery. Another risk is the movements of international exchange rates—in particular, the strengthening of the U.S. dollar—which could hurt the region’s competitiveness.

The report suggests that countries should continue to use the gains from lower oil prices to strengthen cushions for dealing with future unexpected shocks and to reduce public debt. As with the oil exporters, lower oil prices present this group of countries with the opportunity to move closer to eliminating costly and inefficient energy subsidies.

Governments in the region’s oil-importing countries are expected to continue fiscal consolidation in 2015, with a new focus on carrying out measures to increase revenue. The resulting higher revenue—together with savings from energy subsidy reform—could be channeled into higher spending on growth-enhancing initiatives in infrastructure development, education, and health care, the report notes.

Courtesy of IMF

The new trend of low oil prices has rapidly escalated, carrying negative effects for producers and positive effects for the economies of importers, though these have been slow to become apparent. In this complex scenario, the oil-dependent country of Nigeria finds itself in a very peculiar position owing to a specific mix of longstanding issues in its wider economy, politics, security, and last but not least – its oil market. This has left Nigeria particularly exposed to the current crisis.

Let us have a brief look into the internal situation of the oil industry in Nigeria. The country is the largest oil producer in Africa, and the second largest in terms of proven reserves. Its economy is also heavily reliant on oil, which is the source of an overwhelming 95% of its export revenues. Digging a bit a deeper, this figure is linked to a series of structural problems, most notably the industry is mainly concentrated on extraction. Indeed, underdeveloped down-the-line processing activities make Nigeria the only OPEC member to export large quantities of crude and to re-import refined oil, this with a theoretical refining capacity of 445,000 barrels per day and an extraction capacity of 2.5 million bpd.

The performance of this vital sector of the Nigerian economy is unfortunately thwarted by other factors as well.

According to Nigeria’s Central Bank, $20 billion in oil revenues are “missing” from the period spanning from 2012 to 2013, raising the possibility of corruption in the political establishment.

Then there is the resurgence of the MEND guerrilla movement (Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta) in the eponymous geographical area, where most oil reserves are found. This is coupled with the decline of the naira, Nigeria’s national currency, which has lost almost 17% of its value against the US dollar since last October. Depreciation notoriously favors exports, but that is of limited benefit when almost all exports consist of crude oil. Conversely, all imports are negatively affected, with costs of goods becoming inflated.

It is well-known that OPEC decided against cutting back oil production last November, which currently plateaus at around 30 million barrels a day across the entirety of the cartel. This has led to rampant speculation over the reasons behind the decision.

Nigeria seemed to be in good position to make an impact on the workings of the conference considering that OPEC is currently chaired by Diezani Alison-Madueke – the first woman to have this role in the history of the organization – who also serves as Federal Minister of Petroleum Resources of Nigeria in Goodluck Jonathan’s government. In hindsight, most analysts would agree that Nigeria’s choice not to put more pressure in favor of an oligopolistic policy during the meeting was a questionable one. Though too late now, a similar conclusion is apparently being drawn by many inside the cartel, including Nigerian representatives. In a recent statement, Mrs Diezani Alison-Madueke told the Financial Times that an emergency meeting of OPEC could be called due to the concerns of some members over the current price situation. Even so, it is unlikely that a meeting of this sort will take place and, even if it happened, that any decision to change production levels would be taken.

There are three fundamental reasons to believe that this is the case.

Firstly, as it should be clear by now, Saudi Arabia has been firmly against decreasing output levels, as reiterated very firmly by Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi last December, who asserted without any ambiguity that even if the price fell to $20 his country would not pressure to cut supply. It goes without saying that Saudi Arabia is historically one of the most – if not the most – influential participants of the organization.

Secondly, the OPEC members which could benefit the most from slowing down production, though they are facing internal and external difficulties of various degrees, are still divided within the organization and unable to tip the scale of consensus in their favor. Notable names are Lybia and Iraq, which are destabilized by terrorism and civil war, Venezuela which is struggling under the weight of debts and might possibly be targeted by US sanctions targeting the country and not just individuals in the near future, as recently suggested by American Secretery of State John Kerry. There is also Iran, which among its traditional well-known issues has come to a disagreement with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt over its nuclear programme. Nigeria has some internal concerns of its own to worry about, mainly the Boko Haram threat and upcoming elections, elements that might divert attention from foreign issues.

It is unlikely that Nigeria could unite the efforts of the aforementioned members and leverage its presidency position in the cartel at this point in time, particularly after the fresh precedent of last November, when the OPEC conference agreed that production would stay the course without incurring in any major incidents.

Thirdly, the price of Brent slowly rose in February, peaking at about $62, roughly a 33% increase since it had fallen just below $45 at the beginning of 2015. Although the price plunged again and is currently hovering over the $54 mark, the break in the fall suggests that the lower bound has already been reached. Unfortunately, this is a mere palliative for Nigeria’s economy, since most estimates put its break-even point at around $122 a barrel with its current sales volume – more than double the current average price. However, for the time being the country is financially resilient, sitting on about $34.5 billion in foreign reserves and a 2015 public budget based on a $52 oil price benchmark. Certainly not enough to warrant a carefree status for an unlimited amount of time, but still sufficient to cover medium-term necessities and possibly weaken the will to fight against restrict supplying. In the same way, other countries with better break-even points might have reasonable expectations that the price figures will recover naturally to a more sustainable level.

However, this last notion might be controversial for several reasons. On one hand there is uncertainty about the trends of financial speculation. On the other, the demand for oil is still depressed with forecasts remaining gloomy. This last point is also being stressed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in its latest update to the World Economic Outlook 2015.

The approaching general elections on March 28 will likely give some indication about the future course of the country, but whoever wins, oil will play a key role in shaping Nigeria’s future.

Courtesy of Geopolitical Monitor, © 2015 Geopoliticalmonitor Intelligence Corp.

.

Geopoliticalmonitor.com is an international intelligence publication and consultancy that provides a unique perspective on situations and events that have a substantive impact on political, military and economic affairs.  For more information, please visit http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/

The energy-poor kingdom imports nearly 98 percent of its energy from oil products and crude and is struggling to meet electricity demand as its population rises and its industry expands.

Violence in neighboring Iraq and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula has threatened and in many cases, completely cut off electricity supplies in Jordan.

The kingdom aims to attain energy sufficiency and hopes that nuclear power could eventually provide almost 40 percent of its total electricity generating capacity.

The deal, signed with Russia’s state-owned nuclear firm Rosatom, envisages the construction of a two-unit power plant by 2022.

In February, Moscow and Cairo signed a memorandum of understanding to construct Egypt’s first nuclear power plant during a visit from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Russia – U.S. cold war chess board. Photo courtesy of Flickr.

The Empire of Chaos dream of regime change in Russia has always hinged on controlling large swathes of Eurasia.

With “friends” like European Council President Donald Tusk and top NATO commander Gen. Philip Breedlove, the EU certainly doesn’t need enemies.

Gen. Breedhate has been spewing out his best Dr. Strangelove impersonation, warning that evil Russia is invading Ukraine on an everyday basis. The German political establishment is not amused.

Tusk, while meeting with US President Barack Obama, got Divide and Rule backwards; he insisted, “foreign adversaries” were trying to divide the US and the EU – when it’s actually the US that is trying to divide the EU from Russia. And right on cue, he blamed Russia — side by side with the fake Caliphate of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.

Tusk’s way out? The EU should sign the US corporate-devised racket known as Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), or NATO on trade. And then the “West” will rule forever.

NATO may indeed incarnate the ultimate geopolitical/existential paradox; an alliance that exists to manage the chaos it breeds.

And still, revolving around NATO, there are many more diversionist tactics than meet the eye. Take the latest uttering by notorious Russophobe Dr. Zbigniew “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski. In a conference at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Dr. Zbig advanced that the US and Russia should have an understanding that if Ukraine becomes a member of the EU, it won’t become a member of NATO.

Well, dear Doctor, we got a problem. The EU has zero interest in incorporating a failed state on (immensely expensive) life support by the IMF, and technically mired in a civil war.

On the other hand the US has undivided interest in a Ukraine as NATO member; that’s the whole rationale of the relentless post-Maidan demonization of Russia.

Call it the Dr. Zbig maneuver; neo-con wishful thinking; what certain key Empire of Chaos/Masters of the Universe factions would die for; or all of the above; the ultimate target is regime change and dismemberment of Russia. Russian intelligence knows all about the inside story.

To forestall it, there would be only one possible settlement, including; end of sanctions on Russia; end of the raid on the ruble/oil price war; eastern European nations out of NATO; Crimea recognized as part of Russia; eastern Ukraine totally autonomous but still part of Ukraine.

We all know this won’t happen anytime soon – if ever. So a nasty Cold War 2.0 atmosphere is bound to prevail – alongside with relentless demonization reaping its benefits. A new Gallup poll shows most Americans now see Russia – ahead of North Korea, China and Iran – as the US’s public enemy number one and the greatest threat to the West.

Let Me Take You on a Missile Cruise

The Empire of Chaos dream of regime change in Russia has always hinged on controlling large swathes of Eurasia. A puppet in Moscow – a carbon copy of the drunken stooge Yeltsin – would free up Russia’s immense natural resources for the West, with those from the contiguous Central Asian “stans” as a bonus.

If on the other hand Russia maintains its influence, even indirectly, in Ukraine and on Central Asia’s oil and natural gas wealth, Moscow is capable of projecting itself again as a superpower. So once again this is largely about the domination of Eurasian Pipelineistan; anything else means a direct threat to the unipolar world.

Russian intelligence is very much aware of relentless US pressure geared to breaking parts off of Russia, weakening them, until Russia becomes a chaos wasteland not dissimilar to Iraq or Yemen – with natural resources then flowing freely to the West.

That’s why the pressure has been ratcheted up to nearly nuclear war proportions. Some adults in the EU though are starting to get the picture.

The EU simply does not have the funds to really invest in the Central Asian stans, or to pump billions of (devalued) euros into pipelines through Azerbaijan. Libya, Nigeria and the Middle East (from Iraq to Yemen) are a mess. The EU has no energy security in the Middle East and North Africa, and without Russia will have no energy security at all.

This set of circumstances unveils the specter of Cold War 2.0 turning hot as even more bewildering. Needless to add, Poland, Ukraine, and other hapless Eastern Europeans would be mere pawns if a full-blown civil war does break out in Ukraine – the explicit aim of that American fantasyland, the Kaganate of Nulands, or Nulandistan.

In a – admittedly terrifying — war scenario, Russia would seal eastern Ukraine airspace against US air power using an array of sophisticated defensive missiles. Tactical nuclear weapons would be used for the first time. Europe would be basically defenseless as NATO’s Dr. Strangeloves would be tempted to launch a full-scale nuclear war. Still, NATO’s ICBMs, cruise missiles and jet fighters would not pierce the S-400 and S-500 Russian defensive missile systems.

Provoking the Russian bear is a self-defeating proposition. Russia quitting the landmark Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe is really serious business; NATO is beyond alarmed. Not to mention Moscow announcing it has the right to place — and may even have placed — nuclear weapons in Crimea. Meanwhile the Russian military continue to test NATO’s defenses by flying their planes into NATO’s defensive perimeter.

Eurasia swings from one minute to another from reconciliation to provocation. Cui bono? Moscow is a master in keeping Washington and NATO guessing.

Watch That Lady Sing

It was Putin that first wanted, years ago, to create a vast trade emporium from Lisbon to Vladivostok, also including China, using high-speed rail to avoid the US-controlled seas. That was the trade-fuelled original plan, rather than a China-Russia alliance against NATO.

What the Empire of Chaos achieved in Ukraine, at least for now, was to divide Eurasia into three competing blocks; Germany-France allied with the US (but with both now having second thoughts); Russia; and China offset by Japan. Once again, that’s Divide and Rule — with the US as perpetual hegemon always capable of adapting and tweaking its proverbial bomb-and-bully foreign policy strategy.

Yet it ain’t over till the fat (geopolitical) lady sings. The Russia-China strategic partnership keeps evolving – check out the upcoming BRICS and SCO summits in Russia this summer. The oil and natural gas wealth of Russia and Central Asia will keep performing their U-turn towards China and Asia. And in a few years the “Exceptionalists Rule the Waves” mantra will cease to be a game-changer.

Regime change? Keep dreaming.

Pepe Escobar‘s latest book, just out, is Empire of Chaos. Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge (Nimble Books, 2007), and Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

The statements, views, and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EMerging Equity.

Courtesy of Sputnik News, © 2015 Sputnik

The Israeli-Syrian border on the Golan Heights. Photo courtesy Moshe Shai/Flash90.

Israel is planning to build another “separation wall” on its border with Jordan to protect it from possible infiltration by global jihadists, Israeli media reported on Thursday.

The Israeli government’s plan to build the new wall has been revealed following the completion of a similar security fence on its border with Egypt.

The Israeli government said that the first section of the wall will stretch for 18.6 miles (30 kilometers) and will be equipped with security cameras and watch towers. The wall is part of a broader defence plan to secure the Timna region prepared by the Israeli army in the wake of the geo-strategic changes in the region.

Israeli security forces fear that Iraqi and Syrian jihadists have entered Jordan in large numbers and could find their way into Israel. A senior Israeli officer said they do not have intelligence about the activities of Islamic State (IS) elements in Jordan.

The wall has been ratified by the southern front commander in the Israeli army following the government’s decision to build an airport in Timna to replace those in Eilat and Ovda. Work on the wall is expected to begin in the summer of 2016, according to the reports.

The meteoric rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, which has since styled itself the Islamic State in an affirmation of its broader aspirations of dominion over a self-declared caliphate beyond the territories where it exercises control, has aggravated the Middle East’s already treacherous geopolitical landscape. Having emerged out of conflict and instability in Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State has arguably matched or otherwise exceeded the capabilities of fellow extremist groups such as al-Qaeda, its regional affiliates and other violent Islamist organizations. Despite its recent setbacks—notably in Syria’s Kurdish-majority town of Kobane (a.k.a. Ayn al-Arab), located in the northern Aleppo province—the Islamic State has demonstrated an impressive ability to capture, control and consolidate its hold on territory and sustain its insurgent and support cadres. It also operates a sophisticated information and propaganda wing that exploits social media as a force multiplier alongside its scorched earth campaign. It has also drawn support from independent sympathizers and ideological allies throughout the broader Middle East and around globe—including among locally focused extremist factions in Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan and Yemen. These attributes are reminiscent of al-Qaeda’s at the pinnacle of its influence. However, they also reflect the simmering competition between the Islamic State and its al-Qaeda precursor as well as the latter’s regional affiliates such as Jabhat al-Nusra (Terrorism Monitor, February 20). The Islamic State’s increasingly strident discourse and threats also illustrate its rising ambitions; in addition to confronting the incumbent regimes in Iraq and Syria and rival militants and insurgents, the Islamic State has an ambitious set of goals that include challenging Saudi Arabia.

The Islamic State today represents the latest and potentially most complex set of challenges to Saudi Arabia, which had previously drawn the ire of al-Qaeda and its regional affiliate al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Due to the recent death of King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud and the succession of King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, the Islamic State’s rise also comes amid a period of heightened domestic and regional uncertainty. This article will examine the Islamic State’s escalating threats toward Saudi Arabia, which suggest, alongside other recent trends, that the Islamic State is employing a steadily more aggressive threat posture toward Saudi Arabia that is likely to foreshadow future attacks and intensifying pressures.

Mapping the Threat

The Islamic State’s leader (and self-styled caliph) Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi singled out Saudi Arabia in an audio statement titled “Even if the Disbelievers Despise Such,” released by the group’s al-Furqan Media Foundation on November 13, 2014. In his statement, al-Baghdadi extolled what he describes as the purported expansion of the Islamic State to the “lands of al-Haramein” (two holy places) in addition to Yemen, Egypt, Libya and Algeria, through its acceptance of oaths of allegiance sworn by local militants to the self-styled caliphate. Al-Baghdadi’s mention of al-Haramein is notable in that it reflects the radical Islamist proclivity for avoiding any reference to Saudi Arabia by name and, by implication, any indirect recognition of the legitimacy of the Saudi royal family, instead highlighting Islam’s two holiest sites at Mecca and Medina. Al-Baghdadi also proclaimed the appointment of regional governors to represent the Islamic State and called on followers in Saudi Arabia and beyond to recognize and follow their leadership. Al-Baghdadi issued a categorical call to arms: He referred to the Saudi royal family as “the serpent’s head” and the “stronghold of the disease,” and implored his Saudi subjects to attack the “al-Saloul” and “their soldiers.” The reference to al-Saloul represents a derogatory distortion of the al-Saud family name; in Islamic tradition, the al-Saloul family guarded the then-pagan holy site of the Kaaba at Mecca during the pre-Islamic period. He also implored his followers to attack polytheists and rafidah (rejectionists), an inflammatory label often assigned to Shi’a Muslims by extreme Salafists and other hardline Sunni Islamists, in an apparent reference to the Kingdom’s substantial Shi’a minority population. Al-Baghdadi then issued an appeal for “patience” and reassured his followers in the Kingdom that the “vanguards of the Islamic State are on their way” (al-Furqan Media Foundation, November 13, 2014).

The subsequent release of the fifth edition of Dabiq, the Islamic State’s official magazine, in November 2014 by its affiliated al-Hayat Media Center, followed up al-Baghdadi’s earlier de facto declaration of war against the House of Saud. The cover of the magazine is emblazoned with a photograph of the Kaaba at Mecca, while the foreword proclaims that the Islamic State’s flag will “fly over Mecca and Medina.” It is also emphasized that Saudi militants should take up arms at home and avoid traveling to battlefields abroad. A section devoted to Saudi Arabia exalts the efforts of earlier generations of militants who resisted and attacked the monarchy, including al-Qaeda and its regional affiliate AQAP, while at the same time lamenting their failure to achieve their objectives. Equally important, the Islamic State declares its opposition to Saudi’s fellow Persian Gulf monarchies in an apparent declaration of war against Saudi Arabia’s allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). A section of the magazine dedicated to the group’s activities in Yemen emphasizes the proximity between Saudi- and Yemen-based Islamic State loyalists and their potential to cooperate in launching attacks in the Arabian Peninsula (Dabiq, November 2014).

An incursion by militants who had infiltrated Saudi Arabia’s northeastern town of Arar, located in the Northern Borders province that sits adjacent to Iraq’s southern border, on January 5 underlines the potential threat the Islamic State poses to the Kingdom (al-Jazeera, January 5). While details surrounding the incident remain murky, a band of Iraq-based insurgents reportedly associated with the Islamic State is said to have penetrated Saudi territory and engaged a Saudi border police post. The attackers are reported to have employed small unit ambush tactics and a suicide bomber, who detonated his explosives-laden vest while offering to surrender to a senior Saudi security officer, killing himself and the officer. The ensuing incident left three border officers and four militants dead (Saudi Press Agency, January 5). The Northern Borders province is located alongside Iraq’s Anbar province, a key locus of support for the Islamic State that is hotly contested between the Islamic State and Iraqi security forces (Reuters, February 12). The Saudi authorities have also linked the November 2014 murder of a Danish national in the capital Riyadh following the release of a video purportedly recorded by the perpetrators who claimed responsibility for the attack (The National [Abu Dhabi], December 2, 2014). An attack that targeted Shi’a worshippers, who had gathered to commemorate Ashura, in al-Hasa in the Kingdom’s Eastern province has also been attributed to the Islamic State (al-Jazeera, November 25, 2014). Saudi authorities are also reported to have disrupted numerous militant cells linked to the Islamic State (al-Arabiya [Dubai], August 28, 2014).

Geopolitics of the Palace

A consideration of Saudi Arabia’s geopolitical significance is critical to appreciate the nature of the threats the Islamic State poses to the Kingdom. In many respects, the factors that have compelled the Islamic State to confront Saudi Arabia echo those that had originally induced al-Qaeda to take on the monarchy. Much like other entrenched authoritarian regimes in the Middle East that have drawn al-Qaeda’s fury over the years, Saudi Arabia is despised by the Islamic State for what it sees as its pervasive corruption, strategic relationship with the United States and illegitimate position as the custodian of Mecca and Medina. In this regard, the Islamic State, much like al-Qaeda, views the Saudi royal family as an agent of U.S. imperialism that is bent on the domination and subjugation of the Arab and Islamic world. Its status as the world’s largest exporter of oil, and second-largest oil producer, adds another layer of complexity that is surely not lost on the Islamic State. In this regard, al-Qaeda’s earlier targeting of strategic energy infrastructure, including its February 2006 operation against the Abqaiq oil refinery—one of the world’s largest—may provide valuable insights into the Islamic State’s tactical calculus with respect to prospective targets inside the Kingdom (al-Jazeera, February 27, 2006). The circumstances surrounding the 1979 seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca by militants, led by Juhayman al-Otaibi, who were violently opposed to the Saudi monarchy, may also offer a glimpse into the Islamic State’s plans for the Kingdom (al-Majalla [London], November 2009).

For al-Qaeda, the prospect of toppling or otherwise destabilizing the throne represented the apex of achievement in its broader struggle. The often-overlooked fact that a number of al-Qaeda notables, including its late founder and leader Osama bin Laden, arose out of the domestic political opposition in Saudi Arabia, serves as a testament to the hatred the Saudi royal family has incurred within extreme Islamist circles. It is reasonable to assume that Saudi Arabia also figures prominently in the Islamic State’s vision for the wider region even as it is preoccupied with its multiple front insurgent campaign in Iraq and Syria. The Islamic State’s ongoing rivalry with al-Qaeda and its regional affiliates has also likely elevated the Kingdom’s importance as the Islamic State may sense an opportunity to succeed where its al-Qaeda predecessor previously failed. Saudi Arabia’s declared opposition to the Islamic State, its support for rival Syrian insurgent factions such as the Islamic Front and others and its participation in the U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State have likewise elevated its stature as a target (al-Akhbar [Beirut], February 4, 2014; al-Safir [Beirut], January 7, 2014; AP, February 18).

Countermeasures

Saudi Arabia has taken numerous steps to mitigate the threat posed by the Islamic State. In the realm of ideas, it has attempted to rein in members of its religious establishment, including over the solicitation of funds for aid and relief in Syria and prohibiting outright any attempts by Saudis to join the conflict in Syria or engage in other un-sanctioned activities abroad (al-Akhbar, June 7, 2012). In doing so, the Kingdom leveraged the Council of Senior Scholars, the country’s highest religious body. While these efforts predate the rise of the Islamic State, they demonstrate mounting concerns in the palace over events in Syria and their impact on the Saudi population.

These efforts have yielded mixed results, as some prominent clergy have deviated from the official line on how to approach the situation in Syria. More importantly, Saudi volunteers also continue to stream into Syria and other battlefields in large numbers to take up arms alongside various insurgent factions (al-Safir, December 8, 2013; al-Safir, January 20, 2012). There is a great deal of sympathy among Saudis for the plight of Syrians and a deep antipathy toward a secular Baathist regime that is viewed by many as heretical and apostate. An additional challenge is that the ultraconservative forms of Wahhabist and Salafist ideologies propagated by Saudi Arabia’s religious establishment— in many respects, Saudi Arabia is the wellspring of these ideas—are hard to distinguish from the worldviews being espoused by the Islamic State. The Islamic State’s dramatic expansion has nevertheless provoked the Kingdom to engage with its population in the ideological arena. Most recently, Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti, Shaykh Abd al-Aziz al-Ashaykh, has spearheaded a campaign that aims to enlist media and educational institutions in combating the Islamic State’s appeal (Arab News, February 22).

Meanwhile, in the realm of physical security, the Kingdom has embarked on an ambitious project to construct an approximately 600-mile-long security wall on sections of its northern border with Iraq. The wall is designed to prevent militants from infiltrating Saudi territory (al-Jazeera, September 6, 2014). The Kingdom has resorted to a similar strategy in an attempt to insulate itself from the expanding violence and instability that has overtaken its southern neighbor Yemen, building an approximately 1,000-mile-long wall along its border with Yemen (Reuters, January 22; al-Arabiya, April 10, 2013). Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia’s security forces have also continued to make mass arrests of suspected militants in an apparent effort to disrupt suspected domestic extremist activities associated with the Islamic State and potentially other violent Islamist organizations (The National, December 7, 2014).

Conclusion

In contrast to the chaos of Iraq and Syria and other conflict-ridden zones in the broader Middle East where the Islamic State has gained a foothold, Saudi Arabia, upon first glance, represents an impermissible environment for staging and launching militant activities. The Islamic State’s particular brand of brutality has also galvanized opposition to its expansion and influence, including among rival militants wary of its tactics and other actions in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. This is best illustrated by the losses it has incurred in recent months and the growing divide between its community of supporters and those of rival organizations (Daily Star [Beirut], March 3; al-Safir, March 31, 2014). At the same time, there are no indications to suggest that these setbacks will impact its ambitions to follow in the footsteps of its al-Qaeda precursor and lead a campaign to topple the Saudi monarchy.

Chris Zambelis is a Senior Analyst specializing in Middle East affairs for Helios Global, Inc., a risk management group based in the Washington, D.C. area. He is also the director of World Trends Watch, Helios Global’s geopolitical practice area.

The statements, views, and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EMerging Equity.

Courtesy of The Jamestown Foundation, © 2015 The Jamestown Foundation

.

The Jamestown Foundation is a Washington, D.C.-based institute for research and analysis.  Its mission is to inform and educate policy makers and the broader community about events and trends in those societies which are strategically or tactically important to the United States and which frequently restrict access to such information.  For more information, please visit http://www.jamestown.org/

Revenues in the nation have plunged along with the price of oil just as Iraq faces an expensive military campaign against the Islamic State in its northern and western provinces, which is expected to leave around a 25 trillion Iraqi dinar ($21.4 billion) budget shortfall, according to Reuters.

To help fund the deficit, Zebari says the ministry is eyeing measures such as the bond issue, borrowing from state banks, and converting some Iraqi bank assets held by the central bank into bonds, the report said.

The report also said that Iraq may also consider raising money through forward sales of oil should the cabinet reject plans for the 10-year bond issue.

Zebari said that a proposal to convert half of the assets that are held by state banks in the central bank into bonds will raise around $5 billion, and that the nation would also use its Special Drawing Rights to raise around $1.8 billion from the International Monetary Fund, the report added.

BRICS 2014 summit participants: Russian President Vladmir Putin, India Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, Chinese President Xi Jinping, South African Presdient Jacob Zuma. Photo courtesy of Wikimedia.

Winston Churchill once said, “I feel lonely without a war.” He also badly missed the loss of empire. Churchill’s successor – the ‘Empire of Chaos’ – now faces the same quandary. Some wars – as in Ukraine, by proxy – are not going so well.

And the loss of empire increasingly manifests itself in myriad moves by selected players aiming towards a multipolar world.

So no wonder US ‘Think Tankland’ is going bonkers, releasing wacky CIA-tinted “forecasts” where Russia is bound to disintegrate, and China is turning into a communist dictatorship. So much (imperial) wishful thinking, so little time to prolong hegemony.

The acronym that all these “forecasts” dare not reveal is BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). BRICS is worse than the plague as far as the ‘Masters of the Universe’ that really control the current – rigged – world system are concerned. True, the BRICS are facing multiple problems. Brazil at the moment is totally paralyzed; a long, complex, self-defeating process, now coupled with intimations of regime change by local ‘Empire of Chaos’ minions. It will take time, but Brazil will rebound.

That leaves the “RIC” – Russia, India and China – in BRICS as the key drivers of change. For all their interlocking discrepancies, they all agree they don’t need to challenge the hegemon directly while aiming for a new multipolar order.

The BRICS New Development Bank (NDB) – a key alternative to the IMF enabling developing nations to get rid of the US dollar as a reserve currency – will be operative by the end of this year. The NDB will finance infrastructure and sustainable development projects not only in the BRICS nations but other developing nations. Forget about the Western-controlled World Bank, whose capital and lending capacity are never increased by the so-called Western “powers.” The NDB will be an open institution. BRICS nations will keep 55 percent of the voting power, and outside their domain no country will be allowed more than 7 percent of votes. But crucially, developing nations may also become partners and receive loans.

BRICS Leaders. Photograph Courtesy of Getty Images/Sasha Mordovets

Damn those communists

A tripartite entente cordiale is also in the making. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be in China next May – and ‘Chindia’ will certainly engage in a breakthrough concerning their bitter territorial disputes. As much as Delhi has a lot to benefit from China’s massive capital investment and exports, Beijing wants to profit from India’s vast market and technology savvy. In parallel, Beijing has already volunteered economic help to Russia – if Moscow asks for it – on top of their evolving strategic partnership.

The US “pivoting to Asia” – launched at the Pentagon – is all dressed up with no place to go. Bullying Southeast Asia, South Asia and, for that matter, East Asia as a whole into becoming mere ‘Empire of Chaos’ vassals – and on top of it confronting China – was always a non-starter. Not to mention believing in the fairy tale of a remilitarized Japan able to “contain” China.

Isolating the “communist dictatorship” won’t fly. Just watch, for instance, the imminent high-speed rail link between Kunming, in Yunnan province, and Singapore, traversing a key chunk of a Southeast Asia which for Washington would never qualify to be more than a bunch of client states. The emerging 21st century Asia is all about interconnection; and the inexorable sun in this galaxy is China.

As China has embarked in an extremely complex tweaking of its economic development model, as I outlined here, China’s monopoly of low-end manufacturing – its previous industrial base – is migrating across the developing world, especially around the Indian Ocean basin. Good news for the Global South – and that includes everyone from African nations such as Kenya and Tanzania to parts of Southeast Asia and Latin America.

Of course the ‘Empire of Chaos’, business-wise, won’t be thrown out of Asia. But its days as an Asian hegemon, or a geopolitical Mob offering “protection”, are over.

The Chinese remix of Go West, Young Man – in fact go everywhere – started as early as 1999. Of the top 10 biggest container ports in the world, no less than 7 are in China (the others are Singapore, Rotterdam, and Pusan in South Korea). As far as the 12th Chinese 5-year plan – whose last year is 2015 – is concerned, most of the goals of the seven technology areas China wanted to be in the leading positions have been achieved, and in some cases even superseded.

The Bank of China will increasingly let the yuan move more freely against the US dollar. It will be dumping a lot of US dollars every once in a while. The 20-year old US dollar peg will gradually fade. The biggest trading nation on the planet, and the second largest economy simply cannot be anchored to a single currency. And Beijing knows very well how a dollar peg magnifies any external shocks to the Chinese economy.

Sykes-Picot is us

A parallel process in Southwest Asia will also be developing; the dismantling of the nation-state in the Middle East – as in remixing the Sykes-Picot agreement of a hundred years ago. What a stark contrast to the return of the nation-state in Europe.

There have been rumblings that the remixed Sykes is Obama and the remixed Picot is Putin. Not really. It’s the ‘Empire of Chaos’ that is actually acting as the new Sykes-Picot, directly and indirectly reconfiguring the “Greater Middle East.” Former NATO capo Gen. Wesley Clark has recently “revealed” what everyone already knew; the ISIS/ISIL/Daesh fake Caliphate is financed by “close allies of the United States,” as in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Israel. Compare that with Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon admitting that ISIS “does not represent a threat to Israeli interests.” Daesh does the unraveling of Sykes-Picot for the US.

The ‘Empire of Chaos’ actively sought the disintegration of Iraq, Syria and especially Libya. And now, leading the House of Saud, “our” bastard in charge King Salman is none other than the former, choice jihad recruiter for Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, the Afghan Salafist who was the brains behind both Osama bin Laden and alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad.

This is classic ‘Empire of Chaos’ in motion (exceptionalists don’t do nation building, just nation splintering). And there will be plenty of nasty, nation-shattering sequels, from the Central Asian stans to Xinjiang in China, not to mention festering, Ukraine, a.k.a Nulandistan.

Parts of Af-Pak could well turn into a branch of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh right on the borders of Russia, India, China, and Iran. From an ‘Empire of Chaos’ perspective, this potential bloodbath in the “Eurasian Balkans” – to quote eminent Russophobe Dr. Zbig “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski – is the famous “offer you can’t refuse.”

Russia and China, meanwhile, will keep betting on Eurasian integration; strengthening the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and their own internal coordination inside the BRICS; and using plenty of intel resources to go after The Caliph’s goons.

And as much as the Obama administration may be desperate for a final nuclear deal with Iran, Russia and China got to Tehran first. China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi was in Tehran two weeks ago; stressing Iran is one of China’s “foreign policy priorities” and of great “strategic importance.” Sooner rather than later Iran will be a member of the SCO. China already does plenty of roaring trade with Iran, and so does Russia, selling weapons and building nuclear plants.

Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Berlin-Moscow-Beijing?

And then there’s the German question.

Germany now exports 50 percent of its GDP. It used to be only 24 percent in 1990. For the past 10 years, half of German growth depended on exports. Translation: this is a giant economy that badly needs global markets to keep expanding. An ailing EU, by definition, does not fit the bill.

German exports are changing their recipient address. Only 40 percent – and going down – now goes to the EU; the real growth is in Asia. So Germany, in practice, is moving away from the eurozone. That does not entail Germany breaking up the euro; that would be interpreted as a nasty betrayal of the much-lauded “European project.”

What the trade picture unveils is the reason for Germany’s hardball with Greece: either you surrender, completely, or you leave the euro. What Germany wants is to keep a partnership with France and dominate Eastern Europe as an economic satellite, relying on Poland. So expect Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy to face a German wall of intransigence. So much for European “integration,” it works as long as Germany dictates all the rules.

The spanner in the works is that the double fiasco Greece + Ukraine has been exposing. Berlin as an extremely flawed European hegemon – and that’s quite an understatement. Berlin suddenly woke up to the real, nightmarish possibility of a full blown, American-instigated war in Europe’s eastern borderlands against Russia. No wonder Angela Merkel had to fly to Moscow in a hurry.

Moscow – diplomatically – was the winner. And Russia won again when Turkey – fed up with trying to join the EU and being constantly blocked by, who else, Germany and France – decided to pivot to Eurasia for good, ignoring NATO and amplifying relations with both Russia and China.

That happened in the framework of a major ‘Pipelineistan’ game-changer. After Moscow cleverly negotiated the realignment of South Stream towards Turk Stream, right up to the Greek border, Putin and Greek Prime Minister Tsipras also agreed to a pipeline extension from the Turkish border across Greece to southern Europe. So Gazprom will be firmly implanted not only in Turkey but also Greece, which in itself will become mightily strategic in European ‘Pipelineistan’.

So Germany, sooner or later, must answer a categorical imperative – how to keep running massive trade surpluses while dumping their euro trade partners. The only possible answer is more trade with Russia, China and East Asia. It will take quite a while, and there will be many bumps on the road, but a Berlin-Moscow-Beijing trade/commercial axis – or the “RC” in BRICS meet Germany – is all but inevitable.

And no, you won’t read that in any wacky US ‘Think Tankland’ “forecast.”

Pepe Escobar‘s latest book, just out, is Empire of Chaos. Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge (Nimble Books, 2007), and Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

The statements, views, and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EMerging Equity.

Courtesy of RT