Nov 3 2011

Israeli getting ready to strike Iran


Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, is seeking cabinet support for a military strike on Iran,

Haaretz newspaper has reported after day of speculation on plans for such an attack.

The report, citing a senior Israeli official, said Mr Netanyahu was working with defense minister Ehud Barak, to win support from members of the cabinet who oppose attacking Iranian nuclear facilities.

While the talks are ongoing to rally such support, Israel test-fired a ballistic missile from a military base on Wednesday, Israel Radio said.

The report said the launch was carried out from the Palmachim facility. It quoted a Defence Ministry statement as saying the launch was aimed at testing the missile’s propulsion system. Israel has Jericho missiles widely believed to be capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

The reports of Mr Netanyahu pushing for a military strike on Iran came after days of renewed public discussion among Israeli commentators about the possibility that the Jewish state would take unilateral military action against Iran.

Haaretz said that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Barak had already scored a significant win by convincing Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to throw his support behind a strike.

Meanwhile, in Iran media reports have quoted General Hassan Firouzabadi, head of the Armed forces that, the country is on high alert and if an Israeli strike is made Iran will retaliate with a “punishing offensive”. “We consider any threat, even those with low probability, as a definite threat and an act of war, he said, as quoted by Fars news agency.

Clearly the tensions in the Middle East region have reached a new high and this time between two regional players with significant influence. The question now is, is this more rhetoric and hype oozing between Tehran and Tel-Aviv or are we inching closer to a real showdown with a no point of return.

Oct 23 2011

Where Qaddafi went wrong and didn’t learn from Middle East history


You can’t rock the metaphoric “boat”, endanger the lives of billions of people in the Western Hemisphere and expect no retaliation.

What was the man thinking???

For years Qaddafi tried to do everything he could to break Libya free of its ties with the West knowing full well he was shackled hand and foot to the oil companies (TOTAL & BP) that were extracting the countries oil riches (black Gold) and taking the lions share of the wealth for themselves.

Soon after taking power and letting his ego get the better of him,  he started doing everything he possibly could to force the West into noncooperation as a means to force the oil companies out.  The funding and support of the terrorist bombing of PAN AM flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland was an example of this mans state of readiness to take drastic measures of such nature, and yet the oil companies continued working in Libya at greater discomfort and a lower profile than they would have liked.

But where Qaddafi miscalculated was that  while the West condemned his political tactics and loathed his style of diplomacy, they were by no means ready to allow this man or any other world leader for that matter disrupt the very financial system that had kept the Western economies moving forward for centuries, especially after world war two where Europe was devastated and needed to rebuild itself.

In my view Qaddafi was a fool for his unnecessary mischief much like the Shah of Iran was back  in 1973 when he too wanted to renegotiate the terms of Iran’s oil dealings with the West, 35 years too soon, and all we saw the outcome of that political debacle, the Americans lost an ally in the Middle East and Iran was set back a hundred years in terms of its development under the ruling clerical regime.

Having said that …

In all of the struggles the West has had with the Middle East there is a lesson to be learned and that is Western countries need to find a common ground with the MENA region where relationships with newly or soon to be democratic Middle East and North Africa countries is based on mutual trust and mutually profitable cooperation. Something we have yet to see given the Wests outdated colonial mentality.

And so while I am optimistically hopeful in what is happening in the Arab Spring countries, I will say that that so long as a stable relationship that is balanced and fair is not envisioned by both sides, conflict of interest between the West and the MENA region will remain on high alert.

Oct 20 2011

US – Iran tensions are rising with a shadow of war in the distance


The tensions between Iran and the United States are reaching a boiling point. The recent announcement that Iranian Qods force planning an assassination on US soil is
indicative of how serious this confrontation has become and what remaining measures are left on the table for the United States.

3 years into the Obama presidency and his administrations niceties have yielded no significant results or breakthroughs in rekindling US – Iran relations. And so it is fair to say that the much anticipated “behavior change” strategy as advocated by many naive political insiders, pundits and lobbyists in Washington has failed.

And I say naive because without actually living in Iran for a few years it is very hard to understand that the counterpart sitting on the other side of the table, a) doesn’t care much about protecting its national interest (for Iranians) as much as it is interested in prolonging its reign in power (which means, sticking with the death to American the great Satan mantra), b) doesn’t seem to comprehend that the world has changed and that we are no longer living in a cold war era. And c) is steadfast on trying to exert its religious crusade and influence using an ideology that belongs to the dark ages (where for example, a women is valued half a man and that people who step out of line from their version of the faith should be flogged until they are unconscious, paralyzed or killed).

The good news however, for anyone who is paying close attention to the developments inside Iran, is that the new generation of Iranians, those I have met on the streets of Tehran, Shiraz, Mashad, Tabriz, Isfahan, Rasht, Yazd all, without exception, want a better way of managing their political, economic and social future, a future that is beyond this self-imposed theocracy.

Hard sanctions backed by international support of the people of Iran will bring about the ideal change, both for the international community and IRAN. The alternative is WAR and I do NOT SUPPORT IT. “V”

Aug 7 2011

The fight to end human trafficking


If you thought slavery is a term that belonged to the old ages you are sadly mistaking. Slavery is happening all around us and this social disease is spreading like brush-fire. Only by taking a stand and putting the spotlight on human trafficking can we force governments around the world to make policies that eradicates this social ill.

Jul 13 2011

Why branding from a customer centric point of view is important


Last night I gave a talk at the Superbrands awards ceremony held at the Intercontinental hotel in Dubai.  My position was that Brands do not list to customers enough and as a result have failed in their ability to create customer centric conversations as opposed to the old way of communication which is talking in company jargon.    Below is the video.

 

Jun 22 2011

It’s A New Cold War


Early this month a leading member of the Saudi royal family declared that Riyadh could seek to replace Iran’s oil exports if the country doesn’t constrain its nuclear program, a move that could cripple Tehran financially as the country generates over half of its revenue through the sale of oil.

This announcement comes in light of a clear division of interest witnessed during the recent OPEC meeting that clearly put Iran and Saudi at a standoff over production and pricing of oil.

In closed-door remarks, Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal strongly implied that Riyadh would be forced to follow suit if Tehran pushed ahead to develop nuclear weapons and said Saudi Arabia is preparing to employ all of its economic, diplomatic and security means to confront Tehran’s regional ambitions.

“Iran is very vulnerable in the oil sector, and it is there that more could be done to squeeze the current government,” Prince Turki, a former Saudi ambassador to the U.S. told a private gathering of American and British servicemen at RAF Molesworth airbase outside London.

“To put this into perspective, Saudi Arabia has so much [spare] production capacity—nearly 4 million barrels [per] day—that we could almost instantly replace all of Iran’s oil production,” the prince said.

It is also no secret that senior Obama administration officials have lobbied Riyadh over the past two years to explore ways to pressure Iran through the energy markets. The White House has specifically asked Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. to guarantee China greater energy supplies in exchange for Beijing cutting off its energy investments in Iran.

It’s a new regional Cold War, fueled by oil and ideology, between Shiite Islamists who rule Iran and the Sunni Saudi royal family, each of whom consider themselves leaders of the world’s Muslim populations

Iran’s “meddling and destabilizing efforts in countries with Shiite majorities, such as Iraq and Bahrain, as well as those countries with significant Shiite communities…must come to an end,” said Prince Turki “Saudi Arabia will oppose any and all of Iran’s actions in other countries because it is Saudi Arabia’s position that Iran has no right to meddle in other nations’ internal affairs.”

Saudi officials were quick to reply that the 66-year-old royal was speaking only in his private capacity.

Jun 7 2011

German – US relations on the rocks?


Minutes ago President Obama and Chancellor Merkel held a press conference at the Whitehouse.  While it was greatly anticipated that the two leaders would talk about strategic differences in approach with regards to Europe’s financial crisis and on Middle East affairs, the two leaders opened their remarks with high praise and admiration for one another.

The President, while calling the Chancellor by her first name on a number of occasions during his talk, made reference to the two countries strong trade ties and collaboration in industry while at the same time calling on Germany’s need to show greater leadership in European matters during these challenging times. 

Likewise, the Chancellor reciprocated the high praise by giving credit to the United States for its support of  Germany after the Cold war stating that, “I would not be here today had it not been for US leadership”.   

While on the surface the two leaders choreographed the press conference well, behind closed doors it is no secret that the Chancellor has a very different approach to both the financial crisis in Europe and on matters of German – Middle East relations.

On matters of EU financial control,

The Chancellor firmly believes that many of the European countries in a state of crisis are fiscally undisciplined and lack the labor and tax laws that would make them productive and not to mention competitive in today’s global market place.  As such in her view, any form of handout “stimulus” would be a disincentive to the political establishment of such countries to chance course by taking corrective measures.  This is clearly in contrast to the American position that is more interventionist.   

On matters of German – Middle East relationship

It is no secret that for decades Germany has enjoyed a special relationship with countries in the Middle East, namely Iran, going as far back as the days of Reza Shah (1930s) who used the Germans as a leverage against Russian and British influence in Iran.  Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Reza Shahs son, continued the relationship from 1945 to 1979, paving the way for many German companies such as Linde, BASF, Lurgi, Krupp, Siemens, ZF Friedrichshafen, Mercedes, Volkswagen and MAN to enter the lucrative Iranian market.   

But what made this relationship even more exclusive was what happened after the 1979 Islamic revolution and the overthrow of the Shah, who was considered a US ally. 

From 1979 to this day most Western countries who were considered US allies, including the US, were shutout of the Iranian market except for Germany and in the absence of any serious rival this bilateral relationship developed into a multibillion dollar one way German export to Iran business relationship.

Knowing full well what endorsing sanctions on Iran would do to Germany and German companies who rely on this trade to keep their businesses profitable and their staff employed, the Chancellor’s position is difficult.  On the one hand she does not want to lose the relationship her country has with the United States while on the other hand the Iran market is a vital German economic interest.   

On matters of the Palestinians right to statehood Germany has made it clear that it support a two state solution but it has also grown weary of Israel’s continued violations and unauthorized land grab of Palestinian territories.  Furthermore, in light of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech a few weeks ago in Congress denouncing any resumption of talks based on the 1967 boards the Germans have voiced concern over Israel’s genuine intentions.

In my view, and in light of Germany’s strategic interests in Iran, Germany will use its Palestinian card to appease the US and Israel at the United Nations should the Palestinians unilaterally declare statehood and in doing so convince the Americans to back off from calling for further sanctions on Iran. 

The fact of the matter is that 40% of Iran’s trade balance comes from its relationship with Europe of which 29% is with Germany. 

In February of 2006, the President of the German-Iranian Chamber of Commerce in Tehran, Michael Tockuss said “some two thirds of Iranian industry relies on German engineering products and spare parts” and not to mention that the value of trade between Tehran and Berlin has increased to nearly 4.7 billion Euros in 2010.  This translates into 50,000 German jobs who rely on strong German – Iran relations and the Chancellor know this.

May 29 2011

The Arab Spring


The Arab youth revolutions that led to the fall of Hosni Mubarak have not just been a challenge to one man of power, but also to an ideology and a kind of rule that has defined the modern Middle East: centralised systems of government maintained through military and tribal religious welfare frameworks.

However, this is not the first wave of revolutions to hit the region; the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s all witnessed revolutionary movements, against colonialism in North Africa and against monarchies in Egypt and Iran. It is sobering to view systems that emerged in those countries following those upheavals. Revolutions should not be romanticised. They do not necessarily bring the type of change or type of life people imagined.

It may be too early to judge the long-term outcomes of the Arab youth revolutions, but they are undoubtedly different from those that preceded them. Notably, these revolutions were propelled by acts of civil disobedience free from nationalism, socialism or religion. And they were for the most part peaceful.

These youth revolts have ushered in an era beyond militant dissent. That’s not to say that those who espouse the use of violence and terrorism will disappear, but an alternative in the shape of civil disobedience has been added to the Arab spectrum.

The youth revolts are also significant as the first real political milestone in the lives of Arab youth who represent the majority demographic in the Arab world. It is in a sense their moment of self-realization.

The second significant feature of the youth uprisings is the message they transmit: if you don’t like your governments you can change them by taking to the streets and getting online. We saw this idea spread like wildfire first in Tunisia then in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Syria. This message has created legitimate concern for regional regimes and superpowers alike.

Revolutions bring great uncertainty, and in a region where seasoned and legitimate opposition movements are not allowed to exist, revolutions create power vacuums. Should these vacuums be filled by extremists, this could lead to additional layers of challenges for the region. To assume that these revolutions are strictly internal to those respective countries and that external factors play no role would mean ignoring centuries of Middle Eastern history.

One must acknowledge that there are extremist governments that seek to extend their influence and export their ideology. Neo-colonialism, energy/petroleum politics, the economics of the military-industrial complex, geopolitical power struggles and proxy wars are all parts of this “new Cold War” which is shaping the Middle East. Now Arab youths have added themselves as a component to be reckoned with.

Violent or sudden change is clearly not the desirable solution, but it is happening in some societies around us, and will not be avoided so long as the sociopolitical structures contain inherent flaws that lead to social discontent.

Amid the changes that we are witnessing, the greatest long-term safeguard for a nation is empowered citizens. People must be empowered through progressive education, progressive interpretations of Islam, an end of the welfare and rote mentalities that have plagued the region and the encouragement of an active civil society via business and social entrepreneurship.

In addition, we require empowered, independent parliaments that ensure harmony between the will of the people and the will of the ruling establishments. This allows a country to function like a family, capable of constructive debate and of withstanding current and future challenges.

We should not fear change and sociopolitical evolution as much as we should fear stagnation and circumstances in which citizens are not able to engage fully, through legitimate platforms such as parliaments and progressive media and social media. When engagement is prevented, then extremist elements will exploit the frustrations that may exist among citizens, encouraging the growth of extremism in society.

We must not underestimate or discount the nature of each society, nor the history and traditions upon which its sociopolitical structure has been created. Trying to impose foreign systems or ideologies will only backfire. We also must not underestimate or discount the fact that human beings – whatever their religion, ethnicity or history – ultimately hunger for self-determination.

History will not remember us because we were called monarchies, democracies or republics. Our commitment to good governance – in the shape of an enlightened educated populace, effective progressive institutions, empowered independent parliaments, sound socioeconomic policies, independent judiciaries, the rule of progressive law, quality health care and above all the preservation of human dignity – will be the measures defining our place in history. The time will never be “just right” for bold reforms, so the Arab region must take the initiative to do what is necessary.

http://www.najlaalawadhi.com/blog/articles/arab-spring.html

May 24 2011

Netanyahu makes the case why under his leadership Israel will never agree to PEACE


Hours ago Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave what could only be described as a chummy speech to a United States congress that looked more like a pro-Israel fraternity of men and women oblivious to the realities of a 60 year old conflict in the Middle East.

Rather than outlining Israel’s position of compromise and expressing his interest for a lasting peace and rapprochement with the Palestine leadership and with the greater Palestinian people, the Arab world, and in essence with the greater Middle East, Netanyahu added flames to an already volatile fire that could ultimately engulf the entire Middle East region into war. 

His forward leaning demeanor at the podium, condescending and at times patronizing tone of voice, and heavy-handed speech said it loud and clear, Israel under his watch will never accept peace with the Palestinians. Sadly, congress ate it up by giving him 26 standing ovations each time he laid out a demand that incorporated the following points:

A)      Israel will not go back to the, newly defined, “indefensible” 1967 board,
B)      All disputed land claims must be negotiated, meaning Israel will have to agree to it,
C)      Settlements will not be dismantled on occupied Palestinian territory,
D)     Palestinian refugees will not have a right of return to their homeland but in return will be settled in the “new” generously offered Palestinian land given to them by the Israeli’s,
E)      Israel will require more land as it prepares for future growth and development,
F)      Jerusalem will be the undivided capital of Israel,
G)     Fatah must break ties with Hamas for any talks to resume,
H)     In the interest of security, Palestine must become a demilitarized zone while Israel can arm itself with the latest military technology provided by the United States. And
I)        Any attempt by the Palestinians to unilaterally declare a state of Palestine should be vetoed by the United States at the United Nations.  Meaning Israel will not accept any international covenant that gives legitimacy to the Palestinian people.

It was clear that Prime Minister Netanyahu had come to the United States to play hardball, to stand his ground and in some sense to take Barak Obama to school on matters of Middle East real politik. 

His provocative speech while hitting a nerve  around the world served a strategic purpose and that was to forewarn the American center of power that they should expect rocky roads ahead, even a war that could pull Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and other Arab countries that have recently gone through an Arab awakening into the mix.

When all was said and done, Prime Minister Netanyahu thanked congress for their continuous support of Israel and for their one-sided and generous support. 

Minutes after his speech reaction from the Palestinian authority made it clear that they had no intention of furthering talks with Netanyahu and his administration under the current circumstances and see Netanyahu for what he really is, an impediment to peace not only between Israel and the Palestinians but an impediment to peace and security in the greater Middle East.