Mohammed Bin Salman named Crown Prince - Saudi civil war now inevitable

Now that Mohammed Bin Salman has replaced his cousin as the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, the odds of civil war rising out of the monarchy have increased exponentially.

Mohammed Bin Nayef and King Salman have a history of cautious decision making in the kingdom, balancing the various powers and religio-political structures through their roles as King and Crown Prince, and in their previous positions as well. By contrast, Mohammed Bin Salman is hopelessly outmatched in every arena.

As Minister of Defense, Mohammed Bin Salman orchestrated the Yemen war, which has led to military failure and stalemate, an Al-Qaeda stronghold and famine in northern Yemen. Mohammed Bin Salman has been pushing for the 2030 Vision, an ambitious project that seeks to modernize the kingdom and take it further away from its roots in Salafi doctrine, to move it towards modernity, to solidify its position as the US' top Arab partner.

ISIS and Al-Qaeda have been already using Mohammed Bin Salman as their personification of everything wrong with Saudi Arabia. From the terror groups' perspective, Mohammed Bin Salman represents the poison of America, staining the land of the two holy mosques with an implicit alliance with Israel against Iran - and, by extension, against the Palestinians.

But with Mohammed Bin Salman's plan of internal modernization to be coupled with curbing of external "Salifization" - the process of making the Sunni Muslim world identify more with the Qur'an and the Sunnah, without modern contextualization, which leads to ISIS ideology - the only place where Salifization would be able to occur would be from within the kingdom of Saudi Arabia against Mohammed Bin Salman in either a civil war or a revolution.

In fact, unlike King Abdullah, King Salman and former Crown Princes Muqrin and Mohammed Bin Nayef, Mohammed Bin Salman is severely handicapped by one thing above all others: age. His age, 31, gives more reason for Saudis to doubt his ability. This is not only linked to a lack of experience - which he has shown - but also to the innate Arabic culture which respects men with white hair and white beards more than any others. Should Mohammed Bin Salman rule Saudi Arabia as king, he will be younger than self-proclaimed Caliph Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS. And this matters in Arabic culture.

With Sunni-Shi'ite tensions rising in the Gulf; with the Yemeni war showing no end in sight; with Syria stabilizing; with Iran showing dominance across many countries surrounding Saudi Arabia; with Turkey standing against Saudi Arabia with Qatar; and, most of all, with Mohammed Bin Salman leading the kingdom from one foreign policy blunder to another, civil war in Saudi Arabia now seems inevitable.

The only one who may have been able to stop such a civil war is an older member of the Saudi royal family. A king Mohammed Bin Salman is incapable of such a task - even worse, his life is at risk.

How the Afghan War stopped Syrian chaos

Obama withdrew from Iraq in 2011, saying that Iraq's future was now in the hands of its people. At the same time, Obama overthrew Libyan President Gidaffi in a limited air strike campaign, endorsed the Arab Spring and sent Libyan National Army weapons to Syria to help fund the rebels - all the while refusing a peace agreement in Syria until Bashar Al-Assad had stepped aside.

The following should be stated more often: It is more important to win the old wars than to start new ones. It is much easier to start a war than to win a war. Obama himself showed a preference for starting wars over winning wars.

That said, while Obama's withdrawal from Iraq gave him more leeway in interfering during the Arab Spring, he campaigned on fighting the "good war" in Afghanistan. The focus and financial spending on the Afghan War meant that Obama was too invested in continuing said "good war" to really commit in Libya or Syria. In Libya, he limited his airstrikes to overthrowing Libyan President Gidaffi. In Syria, Obama only funded the Syrian rebels and never installed a no-fly-zone to depose Assad, though in 2013 he came dangerously close to doing so.

Trump is also handicapped by the Afghan War and unable to really commit to a ground war in Syria. Like Obama before him, Trump is not as interested in overthrowing Assad as he is in defeating ISIS. Though striking Syria after the alleged chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun, Trump has stated that the US is not going into Syria.

Many of the same voices that scream for the US to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan also scream for the overthrow of the Syrian Government. Neither Trump nor Obama listened to said voices completely, and as a result both committed themselves to fighting the old war in Afghanistan rather than starting a new one in Syria.

Yet unlike Obama, whose policy of withdrawal from Iraq was almost repeated in Afghanistan, Trump is planning to win the Afghan War and to stay in Iraq, which will prevent him from interfering militarily to the same extent Obama had during his Presidency. Trump plans on letting Russia absorb Obama's Syrian and Libyan conflicts, to make sure that, in US foreign policy, Obama's name is forgotten and Trump's name is remembered.

The Afghan War, stated by so many as being a wasted mission, has actually succeeded in a different mission entirely: stopping the US military industrial complex from making the chaos worse in Syria. Bashar Al-Assad is President of Syria to this day, in part, because of the Afghan War. And the world should be grateful for that.

Qatar-Gulf relations in ruins

For more information:

http://www.news18.com/news/world/qatar-saudi-arabia-egypt-bahrain-uae-diplomatic-ties-1421881.html

Saudi Arabia has been leading the way in cutting ties with Qatar over their links to sponsoring Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Countries that are with Saudi Arabia against Qatar include Bahrain, United Arab Emirates (Dubai), Yemen and Egypt.

This news is astonishing. It suggests that Trump's speech in Saudi Arabia has worked in changing the minds of leaders in several Arab countries against terrorism in a strong way. Whatever can be said about other nations' sponsoring of terrorism, Qatar is perhaps the worst sponsor of terrorism in the world, and nations seeking to isolate Qatar for terror-related activities is definitely a step in the right direction.

The rest of the Gulf is as of now blockading Qatar. Should sanctions go on Qatar, the nation itself will be in trouble, as most of Qatar's money comes from their oil and gas reserves. It leaves Qatar more open to instability and terrorism and, should war break out in Qatar, ISIS would find a very receptive crowd there.

It also means that Qatar will try and destabilize its neighbours in hopes of removing the blockade. This makes Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates more vulnerable to ISIS detonation, so while it is commendable that these Gulf countries moved towards decreasing terrorism in the region, it is likely to have a negative impact on the Gulf in the short-term.

Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are particularly vulnerable due to flaring tensions between the Shi'ites and Sunnis in the two nations. Should Qatar direct its resources to instability in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain through a Shi'ite-Sunni conflict, surely ISIS would benefit and absorb the smaller kingdoms - and much of Saudi Arabia - into a new Caliphate. This would, inevitably, absorb Qatar as well.

Perhaps ISIS' next capital after Raqqa is Doha. Or perhaps it will be Dubai, or Bahrain. It is a scary time for the Gulf, with the only certainty being that ISIS will come to the Arabian Gulf and destabilize it completely.

Why the Euro-Islamist Alliance is increasing

The real reason the European Union wants to flood Europe with economic Muslim migrants is out of fear of Russia.

The rise of Russia and China over the last few decades has been remarkable. While China has been steadily growing in production through use of a combination of Capitalism and Communism, Russia has stabilized its areas of instability in the 1990's and, until the trouble in Ukraine began, was doing very well for itself economically.

The Arab Spring and the mess in Ukraine largely took allies away from Russia, but in the face of the current crises in the Middle-East, Russia is set to solidify and gain alliances back. For example, the military intervention against the rebels in Syria has given Russia complete monopoly over Syria and a sure ally in Bashar Al-Assad. With Egypt's help, Russia has also been working on a solution to the Libyan crisis, which would mean Russia would hold sway there as well. Even Russian-Egyptian relations are warming quicker than American-Egyptian relations.

If Russia ends up with military bases in Syria, Libya and Egypt - which I deem likely - that presents a serious threat to hegemony in the EU and even undermines the European Project itself. Therefore, the perceived solution for a weakening Europe is to flood their lands with economic Muslim migrants, because radical Islamic culture is incompatible with Russian influence. Islam represents the best bulwark for Europe against a revived Russia.

Not all EU countries have nor will follow this madness to its conclusion. While Sweden, France and Germany are likely to become part of a Muslim Europe, countries like Poland and Hungary would sooner put past differences with Russia behind them than overrun their country with economic Muslim migrants. Even Britain stands a good chance of resisting this mass emigration, due partially to Brexit and partially to the compartmentalization of Britain into Muslim and non-Muslim areas.

Whatever the case, areas which have resisted Muslim occupation for hundreds and hundreds of years are about to become part of the Muslim world. The EU has valued hatred for Russia over the preservation of its own civilization.

Macron's victory proves western civilisation's impending collapse

After a society turns hyper-sexual, wait 60 years - then you'll see it implode on itself.

In light of this, however, I was surprised when Britain voted Brexit and, subsequently, America voted Trump . I wondered, huh, maybe the west has avoided the fate of the nations before it.

Then Emanuel Macron won the French election.

Left wing politics have become really stupid. Instead of working out how to solve Climate Change - which is the perhaps most pressing issue of our time - the left cries for secular Arab dictatorships to be overthrown, screams for women to end up with more rights than men, screams about micro-aggressions and welcomes excessive economic migrants from Muslim countries.

It doesn't really make a lot of logical sense - until you realise that western civilisation's collapse is self-made and imminent.

The collapse of western civilisation is rooted in post-modernism - which is the rejection of any form of ideology and the ultimate western-culture-loathing pit. That is how Muslim immigration fits into post-modernism: these westerners actually want their society destroyed and to be overpopulated with Muslims.

While Trump and Brexit suggest a shift to the political right (which will save the English-speaking peoples from collapse) France, Germany and other countries of the EU are still holding onto failed left-wing ideals and failed left-wing immigration policies, which will undoubtedly result in the destruction of western culture in countries like France, Germany and Sweden. Western and Central Europe will become Muslim Europe.

Even "better" is that they will have a strong, Muslim leader to bring the Ottoman Empire back to life: Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey. He has systematically destroyed the secular ideology of Ataturk - upon which Turkey was founded - and seeks to bring back the Ottoman Empire. While unlikely to be able to rule the Middle-East - given Russian and American strong ties to the region - the Ottoman Empire spreading out into Europe seems eerily familiar: after the fall of Constantinople, the Ottomans conquered their European empire before conquering the Middle-East.

With Macron elected as President of France, it isn't hard to see how Turkey may actually become part of the European Union in the future, and through the EU remake the Ottoman Empire.

But what about Le Pen? If she couldn't win this time in 2017, there is no way she will win in 2022. With the amount of Muslims Macron is planning on bringing into France, that will shift the population decisively away from Le Pen.

Western collapse is impending in Europe. Civil war is likely to light up the continent as people to the political left and right will tear each other to shreds. I am confident right-wing Britain may actually be victors in such a war, but Sweden, France and Germany (Germany provided a pro-EU chancellor wins this year, which I believe likely) are likely to fall to left-wing/Muslim immigration policies permanently, until Muslims end up ruling western and central Europe.

Soon we are going to see a very different Europe. This next Europe will be supported by either Turkey, Britain/US coalition or Russia. It will be a very dangerous time, a time in which Turkey will become increasingly isolated and nations surrounding Turkey - like Syria, Iraq and Greece - will turn to Russia or America for protection against it.

It is the end of western civilisation as we know it.

Instead of attacking Yemen

I personally believe that Saudi Arabia has made an enormously erroneous move by attacking the Houthis in Yemen and being stuck in a war that only benefits Al-Qaeda.

But I understand that sometimes countries need to exert their influence to make the world a better place. So the question therein lies: what would have been a better alternative for Saudi Arabia than attacking Yemen?

Well, attacking Syria would have been even more disastrous. Russia would have stepped in and completely pushed back Saudi Arabia from overthrowing the Assad Government.

In order to decrease Iranian influence in the region, it would have better served Saudi Arabia to exert an enormous amount of air power in Iraq against ISIS - maybe even send troops there. Such a move could have been supported with the opening of a Saudi Embassy in Baghdad, high level meetings between their two governments and Saudi promising to invest in Iraqi infrastructure after ISIS' defeat.

ISIS represents an even greater threat to Saudi Arabia than Iran does. So it is in Saudi's interest to destroy ISIS at all costs, especially when Iraq borders Saudi Arabia.

But in addition to this, Saudi Arabia could strengthen Iraq as a sovereign nation to get it out of Iranian influence. It could push for the Iraqi Shi'ites to be less obedient to Iran and more obedient to Ayatollah Ali As-Sistani and, subsequently, help fund Sistani's Iraqi Shi'ism against the Iranian Shi'ism, because they are different.

Not only so, but Saudi could have sent its own Shi'ites on scholarship to study Iraqi Shi'ism in Iraq, to stop them being radicalised by Iran. Iraq could have even been invited into the GCC. That would be one way to certainly make Iraq more balanced between Iran and the Gulf states.

If strengthening relations between Iraq and Saudi Arabia wasn't enough, Saudi could have perhaps done an air campaign in Libya on the side of Haftar Al-Khalifa. This would have also strengthened Saudi's position in the region far more than an attack on the Houthis has.

Correspondingly, Saudi could have withdrawn from the ISIS campaign in Syria and cut off all diplomacy with the Houthi-occupied Yemen. That way Saudi would have still been seen as "sticking it" to Iran while also helping make the region more stable.

There are more ways to defeat Iran than just by bombing their allies.

Why North Korea Debacle is great for the Middle-East

Trump ran on an non-interventionist campaign, but the Establishment hates him for it.

There has been enormous pressure on Trump to act in a wide variety of Middle-East conflicts, such as in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan. For the most part, Trump has resisted pressure of unwise escalation, with the exception of an airstrike on a Syrian Government airbase a couple weeks ago.

But the risk is that the Washington Establishment (or, as Trump calls it, the Swamp) will want him to escalate more Middle-East wars to keep the Establishment going. Obama succumbed to the pressure from the Establishment in Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia - whereas in Iraq he made his own decision: pulling out. (As for Obama-Establishment tensions on Syria, it is more complicated than a simple one or the other.)

While refusing to exit from any of the Middle-East conflicts thus far, Trump has so far mostly escalated the conflicts against terrorist networks rather than against governments in any area. As of now, Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, the Houthis in Yemen, Iran and Haftar Al-Khalifa in Libya are all still standing, and Trump has not attacked any of them - with the exception of one airstrike two weeks ago against Syria.

North Korea only increases the likelihood that Trump will not escalate against Bashar Al-Assad, the Houthis, Iran or Haftar Al-Khalifa. With North Korea looking so incredibly unstable and with war between the US and North Korea looking possible, the Establishment would be satisfied with a Korean War over and above many of the piecemeal conflicts in the Middle-East.

This gives Trump the gateway through which he may be able to withdraw from several conflicts in the Middle-East. He has stated that he will give Prime Minister Abadi "strong, firm support" calling them "important partners", so it is unlikely Trump will withdraw from Iraq. He is also unlikely to withdraw from Afghanistan, as winning the Afghan War would make Trump go down in history as a great President. And it is possible that Trump could win this war before he leaves the Presidency.

However, regarding Libya, Trump has shown incredible resistance to interfering with Russian/Egyptian plans in the country, which has caused frustration for Europe but popular support from Americans. Trump has also shown resistance to attacking the Houthis in Yemen. He is also not interested in invading and overthrowing the Syrian Government. In addition to all this, Iran has quietened down in the face of being put "on notice" by the US government.

North Korea, therefore, presents a piecemeal offering Trump may offer to the Establishment, in exchange for withdrawal from Syria after the destruction of ISIS, as well as non-interference against Libya, the Houthis in Yemen and Iran. Because of this, the Middle-East might be spared more regime change madness and be given a chance at some sort of recovery after the disastrous Obama years.