At the very beginning of September, a grand Chinese-African forum was held in Beijing, bringing the heads of 54 African states and 27 regional organizations to the table. The unprecedented scale of the event is reflected in the number of political and economic breakthroughs that was achieved in the course of the negotiations.

The principal political outcome of the summit is the so-called Beijing Declaration, released to the general public on September 4, which consolidated the approaches of various African states to the challenges of today’s world together with reinstating China’s priorities that all are aimed at the promotion of its global OBOR initiative.

Admittedly, Beijing succeeded in highlighting all of tis principal concepts in the 24 articles of the declaration – from those that can be regarded Beijing’s exclusive agenda, such as the formal recognition of “One China”policy by virtually all the African states, together with its global outlook, based on the support it has been providing to all Africans as a part of a single economic, political and civilizational project that is enshrined in the notion that mankind shares a common destiny. It is stated that this approach benefits all people of every singly country in this world. Beijing argues that its goals are closely linked with the agenda of the African Union until 2063 and the national development strategies of various African states.

The declaration contains a set of generally agreed upon points reflecting the common vision of the African leaders and Xi Jinping. The Declaration establishes a common goal – peace and development, along with a pledge to confront threats such as terrorism, poverty, climate change, food security, infection and epidemics together, while dismissing protectionism.

Beijing reaffirmed in the Declaration its intention to provide financial and other forms of support to peacekeeping operations under the auspices of the UN deployed in the conflict-ridden regions on the African continent, to strengthen cooperation with African states in the Security Council in order to reinstate the role that the UN plays in world affairs. While reading this Declaration, one can also come across a thesis about the need to dismantle the Cold War mentality, along with a notion that the UN Security Council should be reformed in accordance with the Ezulwini Consensus that demands that African states are to be granted a greater representation in the Security Council. This document also emphasizes the importance of BRICS, even though the concept mentioned in the Declaration gravitates towards China’s BRICS+ perception of this international union.

As for the bilateral relations between China and individual African states, local leaders pledged their commitment to the exchange of experience with Beijing in such spheres of public life as combating poverty, struggle against corruption, socio-economic development, equality promotion etc.

The Declaration highlights the role of China in the development of the continent’s infrastructure, primarily railway infrastructure, while welcoming Beijing’s investments in the tourism industry, the development of air transportation services in certain African countries.

Of course, the enthusiasm of African states in the support they show to China in these initiatives is not altruistic After all, China’s Xi Jinping, has already promised to invest another 60 billion dollars in the development of the economy of African countries on top of 120 billion dollars that Beijing has already invested in the continent over the last two decades. Formally, invested funds are to be paid back, but not all of them, with parties agreeing on the sum of 45 billion dollars. The remaining 15 billion dollars is China’s voluntarily contribution to the economies of Africa. However, would those investments are going to be repaid or not is still a big question.

It is no coincidence that during the above-mentioned summit China declared its readiness to excuse poorest debt-ridden African countries from proceedings in its favor. It is clear that from the newly promised amounts, many loans in one way or another will also be written off the books.

It is clear that the generous promises that are usually being followed by massive investments can not but be turned down by the leaders of African countries, even in the face of general public expressing its concern over Africa’s increasing dependence on China.

It is clear to everyone that Beijing will not forgive the debt African states are carrying completely, instead it will rather “convert” it in raw material supplies, or in the political support that certain African states will be compelled to show China’s initiatives on the international stage. After all, even at this point it time the level of debt in certain African countries reaches up to 75% of their GDP. But these facts can hardly be regarded as an obstacle to regional players. The acute demand for economic development is so great across the African continent that from the point of view of African leaders it would make them fools to even object to China’s financial assistance.

Therefore, all the arguments made in Washington and London about Beijing’s aggressive “credit colonialism” pretty much fall on deaf ears in Africa. If some states are even willing to listen to those highbrow Western mentors, like the do in Kenya, local politicians will only limit China’s role in their economy, but will not outlaw it. And how could Kenya object to Chinese projects, if Beijing’s exports exceed Kenyan imports by 10 times! And China’s cross-continent railroad from Mombasa is pivotal for the development of the Kenyan economy, and China is willing to invest one billion dollars, while its total cost barely reaches 3.8 billion dollars!

A similar situation can be observed in Namibia, where China has already bypassed South Africa as the largest supplier of goods to this country, while getting a share of 20% of this country’s exports in return. Further still, Beijing is engaged in the modernization of Windhoek airport that will be soon filled with Chinese businessmen and tourists.

Still, many have a question about China’s true goals in Africa. Clearly, they are strategic in their nature, since Beijing works in cooperation with a total of 51 out of 54 African countries, while being engaged in the construction of 2,500 industrial and infrastructure facilities. For the sake of comparison: the USSR would only cooperate with a total of 35 African states and managed to build 360 facilities in Africa back in the eighties! Washington is expressing its deep concern over China entrenching it its entry points to the continent, namely in Djibouti and Kenya, building a powerful infrastructure with modern railways running deep into the heart of the continent. At the same time, Djibouti agreed to host China’s largest overseas naval base that can house a total of 10,000 servicemen.

Many Western observers argue that China is not only willing to trade with Africa, but is preparing the continent for the construction of large production facilities in order to outsource its production needs to Africa. As for its own territory, it’s going to use it for the creations of high-tech enterprises according to the trends of the fourth industrial revolution. The game seems to be well worth the risk – by moving production to Africa, China will drastically reduce production and logistical costs, since it will not be necessary to transport resources and oil from Africa to China to ship back goods. This fact will make all African countries avid supporters of Beijing’s policies. In fact, Beijing wants to do with Africa what the US did with it in the nineties, when American production capacities were transferred to China, getting the production base as close as possible to the actual consumers. Will Beijing manage to fulfill this goal? While there is no certainty over the actual prospects of this ambition due to highly turbulent nature of African politics, Beijing cannot turns its back on this commitment. Too much effort has been invested in its “African project” already.

Maksim Egorov, a political observer for the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

3-4 сентября в Пекине состоялся грандиозный саммит «Китай-Африка», в котором приняли участие главы 54 африканских государств и 27 региональных организаций. Масштабными можно назвать также его политические и экономические результаты.

Главный политический итог – опубликованная 4 сентября Пекинская декларация, которая закрепила как подходы африканских государств к вопросам мироустройства, так и основные приоритеты КНР, продвигающего свою глобальную инициативу «Один пояс – один путь», которая стала идеологическим оформлением продвигающейся Китаем с начала тысячелетия экономической программы построения «Нового шелкового пути».

Надо признать, Пекину удалось в 24 пунктах этой декларации закрепить все свои основные тезисы – от узко китайских, таких как признание всеми африканскими государствами политики «одного Китая», так и глобальных мировоззренческих, основанных на поддержке африканцами единого с Китаем экономического, политического и цивилизационного проекта «единой судьбы человечества». Провозглашается, что этот проект «соответствует тенденциям времени и несет выгоду народам всех стран». Подчеркивается его взаимоувязанность с реализацией повестки Афросоюза до 2063 года и национальными стратегиями развития африканских стран.

В декларации есть набор бесспорных пунктов, отражающих консенсусное видение главами африканских государств и Китая общемировых задач. В Декларации закрепляется совместная цель – мир и развитие, а также готовность противостоять таким угрозам, как терроризм, нищета, изменение климата, продовольственная безопасность, инфекции и эпидемии, протекционизм.

Пекин подтвердил в Декларации свое намерение оказывать финансовую и иную поддержу миротворческих операций под эгидой ООН в «горячих точках» африканского континента, укреплять взаимодействие с африканскими государствами в Совете Безопасности в целях укрепления роли ООН, ее Устава, поддержки ее активной роли в международных делах. В Декларации есть и тезис о необходимости бороться с менталитетом «холодной войны», видение Китаем и африканскими странами реформы Совета Безопасности» на основе «консенсуса Эзулвини» (большая представленность африканских государств в СБ), а также рельефное обозначение в Декларации значимости формата «БРИКС» (правда, в близкой Китаю трактовке БРИКС+) для укрепления международного сотрудничества и реализации четвертой индустриальной революции.

Что касается непосредственно отношений Черного континента с Китаем, то африканские лидеры готовы «обмениваться опытом» с Пекином в сфере госуправления по таким векторам, как борьба с бедностью, коррупцией, социально-экономическое развитие сельскохозяйственных районов, равенство прав мужчин и женщин, расширение возможностей и перспектив для молодежи и др.

В Декларации высоко оценивается роль КНР в развитии инфраструктуры континента, прежде всего железнодорожной, приветствуются инвестиции Пекина в туристическую отрасль, развитие авиасообщения между «Поднебесной» и африканскими странами.

Конечно, энтузиазм африканцев в части поддержки китайских тезисов не во всем носит альтруистический характер. Ведь Китай устами Си Цзиньпина пообещал инвестировать в экономику африканских стран еще 60 млрд долл. в дополнение к 120 млрд долл., которые он уже вложил в экономику континента с 2000 года. Официально вложенные средства должны быть возвращены, но не все, а лишь 45 млрд долл. Остальные 15 – безвозмездный вклад Китая в экономику африканских стран. Да и возврат остающихся средств тоже под вопросом. Не случайно в ходе упомянутого саммита КНР заявила о готовности освободить наиболее бедные страны с высоким уровнем задолженности от платежей по межправительственным кредитным обязательствам, сроки которых завершаются в 2018 году. Понятно, что и из вновь обещанных сумм многие кредиты так или иначе, но тоже не будут погашены…

Понятное дело, что щедрые посулы и обещания китайцев, к тому же реально исполняемые в большей своей части, не могут не приветствоваться лидерами африканских государств, даже несмотря на опасения, а то и протесты общественности против усиления зависимости от Китая.

Всем понятно, что всё же полностью китайцы долги африканцам не простят и будут их «конвертировать» либо в поставки сырья, либо в политические обязательства по поддержке тех или иных инициатив КНР, либо всё вместе взятое. Ведь уже сейчас задолженность ряда стран Африки составляет от 55 до 75% ВВП. Но это мало кого останавливает. Нужды и потребности региона в экономическом развитии настолько велики, что возражать против помощи китайцев было бы, с точки зрения африканских лидеров, просто глупо. Да и долги придется отдавать не завтра…

Поэтому все окрики из Вашингтона и Лондона, причитания о «кредитном колониализме» Китая, африканцы в основной своей массе пропускают мимо ушей и, если прислушиваются, как в Кении, к западным менторам, то лишь наполовину, ограничивая уровень участия Китая в экономике, но не исключая его совсем. Да и как Кения может возражать против китайских проектов, если китайский экспорт превышает кенийский импорт в 10 раз! Да и строящаяся Китаем железная дорога от Момбасы через всю страну, в которую Китай дополнительно хочет вложить 1 млрд долл. (при общей стоимости проекта в 3,8 млрд долл.) крайне необходима!

Похожая ситуация в Намибии, где Китай уже обошел ЮАР как крупнейший поставщик товаров в страну. А почти 20% экспорта уходят в ту же Поднебесную. Да еще Китай берется за модернизацию аэропорта Виндхука. Можно не сомневаться, что затем он будет заполнен китайскими же бизнесменами и туристами.

И все же у многих встает вопрос об истинных целях Китая в Африке. Ясно, что они носят стратегический характер, раз КНР работает в 51 из 54 африканских стран и строит там 2,5 тысячи промышленных и инфраструктурных объектов. Для сравнения: СССР сотрудничал с 35 африканскими государствами и строил в восьмидесятые годы 360 объектов! Запад особенно беспокоит то, что в «точках входа» КНР на континент – в Джибути и в Кении КНР создает мощную инфраструктуру, тянет вглубь континента железные дороги, а в той же Джибути создал крупнейшую военно-морскую базу на 10 тысяч человек.

Многие западные наблюдатели делают вывод, что Китай не просто желает торговать с Африкой, но готовит континент к тому, чтобы развернуть на нем крупные производственные мощности, а по сути дела, перенести производство на базе третьего промышленного уклада в Африку. Свою же территорию по максимуму освободить для развертывания предприятий по канонам четвертой промышленной революции. Игра стоит свеч: перенеся производство в Африку, Китай кардинально снизит производственные и логистические издержки, поскольку не нужно будет возить ресурсы и нефть из Африки в Китай, а обратно – товары, а заодно крепко привяжет к себе африканские страны. По сути, Пекин хочет проделать с Африкой то, что США сделали с ним в девяностые-двухтысячные годы, когда американское производство было массово перенесено в Китай, и производственная база максимально приближена к потребителям. Справится ли КНР с этой задачей? Пока стопроцентной уверенности нет с учетом высокой политической турбулентности во многих странах Африки, но и отказаться от своего проекта Пекин уже не может. Слишком много усилий было вложено в «африканский проект».

Максим Егоров, политический обозреватель по Ближнему Востоку, специально для интернет-журнала «Новое Восточное Обозрение».

During last month’s Valdai forum – one of the most prestigious in Russia, involving respected experts from around the world – there was a discussion of how the Yemen crisis could be resolved. Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, took part in the forum, clearly defining Russia’s position against a military solution to the conflict in Yemen, which is simply impossible. The attempts by the Arab coalition to force the Houthis, who triggered the collapse of the political balance that had existed in Yemen since 2014, to comply with Security Council Resolution 2216 and restore the status quo ante bellum have, so far, come to nothing.

Yes, the victims in Yemen have been much fewer than in Syria, but the country has been laid waste and three quarters of its citizens are suffering from hunger, children do not go to school, hospitals have been bombed, and the whole country is ravaged by epidemics of cholera and other diseases. Yes, the international community is making efforts to deliver humanitarian aid to the country by all possible routes, but this is clearly insufficient and is the equivalent of drip feeding a dying patient: it prevents him from dying but cannot do anything to heal him.

On March 3, after the end of the discussions in the Valdai forum, the Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, reflecting on the current situation in an interview with the Ethiopian newspaper “Reporter”, pointed out that it is important to accept that it is unlikely that national reconciliation can be achieved in Yemen quickly. “The opposing sides now have too many grievances against each other, in many cases with some justification. That situation explains the unwillingness of the factions in Yemen to return to a constructive discussion of how to overcome their antagonism, which today is the main obstacle to solving the crisis in the country. Nevertheless that should not be a reason to wash our hands of what is happening there,” he said.

Sergei Lavrov emphasized that the international community, and in particular the UN, must continue to press the parties in Yemen to renounce violence and sit down around a negotiating table together. Accordingly, since the beginning of the critical phase of the crisis in Yemen on March 26, 2015, when the anti-Houthi coalition led by Saudi Arabia started bombing Yemen, Russian diplomats have been focusing on exactly that, and have been actively helping the UN special envoy, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmad to bring about a ceasefire. However, all his efforts and initiatives have been dashed because of the parties lack sufficient political will. When, at last, Ali Abdullah Saleh, the country’s ex-president and one of the main figures in Yemeni politics, decided to break with the Houthis and engage in negotiations, he was killed shortly afterwards (on December 4, 2017) by elements opposed to a political solution, and the peace process reached a dead end again.

In view of the circumstances, in January 2018 Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmad decided to announce that he did not wish to continue his contract, and in February he resigned as the special envoy of the UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

It is already clear that the new special envoy is inheriting a difficult task and will not be able to manage without the support of the major world powers. It is no coincidence that the well-known New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, discussing the upcoming visit of the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman to the USA in that paper on March 7, called on President Trump to appoint an assistant secretary of state for Middle Eastern affairs and an ambassador to El-Riyadh, who would be able, among other things, to help the young de-facto ruler of the USA’s main regional ally get out of the Yemeni quagmire, as soon as possible.

Needless to say, that is good advice. It is true that it should not be forgotten that, in many ways, it was the Americans who drew Saudi Arabia into that conflict by passing on what was clearly exaggerated on Iran’s involvement in Yemen, and by supplying El-Riyadh with huge amounts of arms and pandering to its military instincts. What is more, American specialists have been servicing the military hardware sold to Saudi Arabia to ensure it is ready for use, and now Thomas Friedman talks about the importance of regulating the Yemeni conflict, which is stuck in a stalemate.

It must be admitted that Rex Tillerson’s dismissal on 13 March, and the appointment of his replacement, the CIA director and American political hawk Mike Pompeo, will do very little to help bring about the changes Thomas Friedman is calling for. Mike Pompeo has clearly been appointed to demolish, and not build, and his priorities are more likely to be to dismantle the Iranian nuclear deal and to prevent Russia from winning a final victory in Syria than to bring about an end to the war in Yemen. As is well known, the CIA has, throughout its history, focused not on collecting information but on bloody provocations and bringing about military coups, which are absolutely not the skills required to regulate the crisis in Yemen.

It is therefore highly likely that the new special envoy of the UN Secretary-General will lack the necessary support from the USA and will have to rely on his own resources, with assistance from Moscow. He will be dogged by the lack of new ideas and the dead-end situation that had emerged at the end of Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmad’s tenure.

So, what steps will he be able to take? It seems that he will have to make do with whatever ideas and proposals the Yemenis themselves offer him, especially those whose “souls suffer for their country”, to use the Russian expression. One such person is the former president of Yemen, Ali Nasir Muhammad, who presented his program for a way out of the crisis in the Valdai forum. The author has been able to obtain a full version of that plan, which, it is thought, António Guterres’ new special envoy may find useful as he begins his work. Here is a summary of the plan, which follows the text closely:

1. To end the fighting and create a suitable political climate for the renewal of the political process, by applying pressure on the regional parties to the conflict. A suitable model might be the peace agreement that brought an end to the 1960s civil war between Yemeni royalists and republicans, which was brokered by the Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and King Faisal of Saudi Arabia. The actual parties to the Yemeni conflict played no role in negotiating that agreement, and, as today, they did not want the war to stop.

2. After the ceasefire the first steps in the restoration of trust between the opposing sides will be made, and to achieve this, the following actions need to be taken:

A) the creation of a five-member Presidential Council to govern during the transition period;

B) the formation of a government of national accord containing representatives of all political forces.

3. The formation of local, regional and international military councils to collect heavy and medium-sized weaponry from the various armed groups; the collected arms will then be kept by the national Ministry of Defence.

4. The start of talks between all the political and social groups in Yemeni society, in order to reach a consensus on the form of a future federal state, which will be made up of two regions.

5. The creation of a constitution committee which will start considering proposed drafts of a constitution.

6. The formation of a general election commission, which will make arrangements for general parliamentary elections and ensure that they are transparent, in compliance with the rules observed by democratic states.

7. An address, in coordination with regional and world powers, with a request for funding of a development plan which would enable the renewal of the country’s economy.

8. The UN Security Council should approve this road map and require it to be implemented.

If these proposals are analysed it will be seen that some of them duplicate the measures that Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmad attempted to put into effect, while others draw on lessons learned from the ceasefire that ended Yemen’s civil war in the 1960s.

What conditions are required for this plan, which clearly needs to be drawn up in more depth and detail, to work? First of all, at a minimum, the USA must not try and obstruct it. Secondly, El-Riyadh would have made a political decision to cease the conflict without achieving a military victory over the Houthis, and agree to their taking part in the political life of their country. Thirdly, the political platform of national reconciliation, developed after the launch of the Gulf Cooperation Council states’ initiative to bring about peace in Yemen, and begin a national dialogue, must at least be taken into account. Any proposals for federalization included in the results of this dialogue may turn out to be productive and could prevent the break-up of the country.

Russia is able to provide positive political support for the implementation of this plan and can exert the necessary influence on Iran to ensure that the latter, motivated by the anti-Saudi feelings that are so powerful in that country, does not sabotage the plan.

Obviously, that would be a challenging path, strewn with thorns rather than roses. But the tortured country of Yemen has simply has no option other than to seek a political solution. And the sooner the parties to the conflict, including the Houthis, understand that for themselves, the greater the chances of peace for the the proud and ancient nation of Yemen.

Maksim Egorov, a political observer for the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

This November in Riyadh, colder than ever, turned out be hot in the political sense and provided Saudi Arabia the front-page spaces of the world mass-media outlets. To be more precise, it was secured by the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohhamad Bin Salman Al Saud, who, throughout the whole month, was pursuing extremely active foreign and domestic policies.

4th November became another landmark day. On this day, the Houthis launched a ballistic missile aimed at Riyadh Airport, and the Prime-Minister of Lebanon, Saad Hariri, being in the capital of the ‘Saudi state’, resigned. At the same time, 11 princes, 38 high officials and an array of other people ‘burdened’ with massive fortunes (208 people in total) were arrested in the same city on the corruption allegation and locked up in the ‘gilded cell’ of the Ritz-Carlton, Riyadh luxury hotel, where they are still now.

These versatile events created a certain amalgam, which overshadowed the essence of what is happening and made the whole world be excited, suspecting that something is wrong in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The oil prices began to creep up, and many Western companies decided to take precautions and started hedging to reduce the risks and withdraw their capital from Saudi Arabia’s jurisdiction. The initial opinion of the analysts of the world mass media was that the internal political struggle in the kingdom was increasing, its internal and external position gives the signs of indecision and disorder, and it is unknown where the young prince is ‘at venture’, who is allegedly immature, hot-tempered, ambitious and makes one political mistake after another.

However, a more careful consideration of various aspects of the internal political, social and economic life of the country helps revealing other vectors.

What this means is that the young prince by launching an anti-corruption campaign got a great many of high-ranking officials, including members of the royal family, caught in the crossfire.

It goes without saying that those are right who assume that these arrests reflect the political in-fighting, whilst those who found themselves in the ‘Ritz-Carlton’, unable to prove their political reliability. They were up to no good with regards to the young prince and intended to rest upon the ‘soaking princes’, such as Muqrin bin Abdulaziz or Muhammad bin Nayef, to restore the lost power and positions. There are plenty of such versions on the vast Arab segments of Internet. However, even if the authors of theses versions, also stating that the conspirators were grassed to Mohhamad bin Salman by Donald Trump and CIA, are right, then, as of late November, one must admit that the young prince practically won the battle for the crown by arresting these people, and nowadays Saudi Arabia became much more stable than it was back in October.

Why might this statement be considered as reasonable? There are several reasons for this. First, for nearly three years, since January 2015, when his father acceded to the throne, also known in Saudi Arabia as MBS, conducted a whole series of large-scale shaking-up of the whole state machine of the country brilliantly and very professionally and unhorsed his main rivals. Whereby it was conducted quite competently (one could feel the powerful guiding hand of his father, who was acting throughout his life, as a ‘moderator’ in the royal family, as the most modern term suggests.

First, the weakest, however the most dangerous link was eliminated, from the point of view of the former laws of succession to the throne – the office of the successor of the Crown Prince was vacated by the youngest son of the kingdom’s founder King Abdulazis al-Saud – Muqrin. By not being an authoritarian person, but rather a bon vivant, he was satisfied with the ‘compensation’ that was offered to him by Sudairi Clan – Muqrin also refers to this. The post was passed to MBS, then a series of shaking-up measures in the state machine followed, where the young prince appointed his loyal people, mainly technocrat-businessmen, having no relation to the royal family and obliged by their elevation not due to the royal lineage or ‘royal blood’ flowing, but rather to the benevolence of the young prince. In the royal chancellery, a ‘smaller cabinet’ was created that consisted of the specially entrusted person to Mohammad. Further on, in the autumn of 2015, the company ‘Saudi Aramco’ went under the control of the young prince; this company brings the main revenues to the kingdom (90%). The half-brother of Mohammad – Abdelaziz was not allowed to take the helm – he was instead always holding the key positions in the Ministry of Energy, Industry and Mineral Resources.

Secondly, by moving aside Prince Muqrin, Mohammad with the direct support of his father, started the attack on the the-then Crown Prince Muhhamad bin Nayef. It did not bring any results for a long time, the prince was not interested in the settlement compensation, evaded the plain talk and was clearly playing for time. His ambition would be to wait for the victory of Hillary Clinton and her team in the election of November 2016 in the USA, who gave him then (then on the behalf of the very same ‘democrat’, as she is, Barack Obama) assurances of the rise to power after death of King Abdullah. These assurances were being provided during the visit of Muhhamad bin Nayef to Washington in December 2014, several weeks prior to the death of the then monarch. However, the fate decreed in a different way: Donald Trump won the elections, who went to Riyadh on his first foreign trip, where he quickly found common ground with the young prince. And the latter, getting the picture of the changing trend, immediately encouraged the tune of the newly-elected American president to revive the American industry, by having signed quite a few military contracts for the amount exceeding 100 billion dollars. MBS established friendly contacts with Jared Kushner, who had visited the KSA three times before.

It is unknown what charms, apart from the military contracts, were used by MBS (one can only guess), however soon it became clear that the young prince looks for the team of D. Trump preferable as a partner than connected with the American ‘Deep State’ Muhhamad bin Nayef.

As a result, having formed the alliance, with the support of his father, with the other members of Sudairi Clan, MBS, by persuasion and menace achieved that Muhhamad bin Nayef resigned this June the post of the Crown Prince, by passing this post on to the prince Muhhamad.

Thirdly, by smashing his political opponents stage by stage and then separately, the young prince easily eliminated, in essence, the last obstacle on the path to throne – the solid Fronde of the chief of the Saudi Arabian National Guard, son of the former King Abdallah, Prince Mutaib. It should be noted that the National Guard was created by King Abdallah as his personal Praetorian Guard, which ensured his rise to power in 2005. The tribes supporting it and being its part were transferred to Abdallah and his son Prince Mutaib, who was the only one brave enough to keep the portrait of his father in his official residence after his death.

However, as before, by swift and calculated actions, MBS could remove Mutaib from his post promptly and neutralise the sheiks of the tribes that were supporting him. Here he rested upon the whole Sudairi Clan after the resignations of Muqrin and Muhhamad bin Nayef, who never liked Abdullah – ‘the wanna-be’, in their opinion, from the tribe of Shammar (his mother originated from there).

Considering this, even if the November plot of the now arrested princes and other persons took place, it was not particularly dangerous for Mohhamad bin Salman. And having revealed the plans and playing the game of the ‘fight against corruption’, he, as it appears, won twice, if not three times. First, the remnants of the opposition have been arrested and are in his hands. Secondly, they all look like miserable corruptionists, thinking only about their own pockets and opposing the progressive reforms of the prince. Thirdly, he has already made 100 billion dollars out of them, practically having covered the deficit of the Saudi Arabia budget for this year and he is sure to make more out of them. At the earliest, the assets of the arrested persons will be transferred under the control of the state, that is under his personal control, together with the positions, which these people occupied in the Board of Directors of the largest financial institutions of the West, which makes MBS an independent and a strong player in the world finances. Now, even if someone wanted to ‘bear’ and not to allow the planned IPO of ‘Saudi Aramco’ for 2018 in the amount of 200 billion dollars (where the attempts to put the market-appraisal of the company too low have been made recently), he will hardly succeed in this now.

Thus, the question of the succession to throne of the powerful enough in the political and financial respect, Mohhamad Bin Salman now became only formal. Only he and his father are now choosing the right moment for this occasion. There are all good reasons to believe that this event will take place soon, possibly, before the end of this year.

Maksim Egorov, a political observer for the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Although in recent months, Libya has not been in the focus of attention of top-level politicians and the global media at large, nevertheless, several developments have occurred that are actually quite important, albeit hardly noticeable to the outside world.

The gradual accumulation of these not-very-significant changes in the domestic political situation and on the foreign policy background could potentially lead to a qualitative shift and scrapping of the fragile balances that formed after the overthrow of the regime of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 and led to the coexistence on Libyan territory of three governments with varying degrees of legitimacy. One of these administrations is headed by Fayez al-Sarraj, who is recognized by the international community as Leader of the Libyan State based on the inter-Libyan Agreement that was duly signed in Skhirat (Morocco) on December 17, 2015. The second one is based in Tripoli, and is mostly made up of Islamist groups operating from the capital, as well as from outlying cities like Misurata and Sabratha (having no legitimacy except for control over part of Tripolitania). The third is based in Tobruk (Cyrenaica) and is made up of a legitimately elected parliament recognized by the international community and the Libyan armed forces led by Marshal Khalifa Haftar, who has long been fighting against radical Islam. At the same time, the south of Libya (the historical Fezzan) remains partially under the control of the forces of Khalifa Haftar, in part under the rule of the forces of Ali Kahn, a former officer of the troops of Muammar Gaddafi, but supported by Algeria.

The first “pebble” that could engender an avalanche was the liberation of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi in Zintan on June 9 by the Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, an armed group cooperating with Marshal Haftar. He, like the marshal, is an implacable enemy of radical Islam, since it was precisely these groups, supported by France, Turkey and Qatar, that played an ominous role in the tragic fate of his father, and indeed of all of Libya. This figure has great political experience and weight and, probably, considerable financial opportunities. But he has not yet announced his political position, and it is possible that he will form an independent pole of national-patriotic forces around himself, which will comprise in part of representatives of the former regime and partly on the large Libyan tribes that formed the backbone of his father’s power. We cannot exclude his alliance with the ‘Council of the Tribes and Cities of Libya’, led by the faithful gaddafist Taher Dachesh. The weaknesses of the Gaddafi movement include the fact that they do not control the oil fields and terminals of the country, which are firmly held by the people of Marshal Haftar and Aguila Saleh Issa.

It would be logical for Saif al-Islam Gaddafi to move towards the bloc led by Aguila Saleh (Head of Parliament inTobruk) and H. Haftar, taking into account the fact that the mother of this son of Gaddafi comes from the eastern regions of Libya (historical Cyrenaic). However, this path can be littered with significant obstacles connected with the fact that both forces in Tobruk are ready to enter into an alliance with Saif al-Islam, as well as those who are with the representatives of the former regime in very ambiguous relations, like the same marshal H. Haftar, who, at one time, deserted from the camp of Gaddafi and lived in the United States for an extended period of time, and in Libya, some regard him as a person who defends more than simply national interests alone. Therefore, it is unacceptable for Saif al-Islam to cooperate with the French, who stole from the Libyan state money that was in the accounts of French banks, with Nicolas Sarkozy having openly betrayed Gaddafi. There are other obstacles, chief of which being connected with the fact that the internationally recognized government in Tripoli, just like the International Criminal Court, still considers him a state criminal, and continues to look for him to bring him to trial.

However, with any development of events, it is clear that in the camp of fighters against Islamists, there is an explicit addition, and the balance of power is inexorably shifting in their favor. This is indicated by the case of the May 22 Manchester Bombing, in which a terrorist blew himself up at the Manchester Stadium during singer Ariana Grande’s concert performance. The investigation showed that the terrorist, Salman Ramadan Abadi, although a British citizen, was from Libya and, shortly before the terrorist attack, for which the Islamic State accepted responsibility, possibly came to Libya and received instructions from extremist groups from Misurata (where the Muslim Brotherhood runs the show).

This circumstance, along with the irreconcilable (as it is considered) attitude towards the Muslim Brotherhood Association on the part of the new US administration, could encourage Western governments to reconsider their relations with them (and in the struggle against the secular regimes of the Middle East, the United Kingdom and the United States have nurtured and supported them for decades). The first signs of this are, namely, the frequent contacts of Western diplomats with the H. Haftar faction.

Another sign is the introduction by US Congressman Tulsi Gabbard, a member of the committees of the House of Representatives for Armed Forces and Foreign Affairs, of a bill banning the US from selling arms sales to and participating in military cooperation projects with countries that provide weapons and finance terrorist organizations and their accomplices, along with providing any assistance to terrorist organizations in Syria. The Libyan Muslim Brotherhood falls directly under this category.

The next ‘pebble’ capable of provoking an avalanche may be the resignation of German diplomat Martin Kobler from the post of UN Special Representative, Head of United Nations Support Mission in Libya – a fact that was indicated on June 15. Kobler has been the force that, with the help of Western governments, strongly supported the Islamist entrenchment in Tripoli and wide representation in Sarraj’s government.

Kobler will be replaced by a well-known Lebanese public and political figure, Political Scientist, Professor of International Relations and Conflict Resolution at the French university Sciences-po (Paris) Ghassan Salamé. The UN Security Council confirmed him in this position on June 17. G. Salamé has not only served as Minister of Culture in the Lebanese government (2000-2003), but also actively participated in the early 2000s in attempts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, and did so in cooperation with the United Nations and jointly with the League of Arab States, which then was not the pathetic and helpless empty structure into which it has turned now. He can contribute constructively to the settlement, if only because he is an Arab and better understands his interlocutors. It should be borne in mind that Kobler has lived and worked in France for a long time, and, therefore, he will take into account the approaches and concerns of his “second homeland”. It should also be known that he is also a member of the consultative International Crisis Group, created in the nineties by globalists. Behind this group looms the figure of George Soros and a number of Western governments. This, of course, is no good for Libya, unless, of course, Salamé chooses to show his best qualities, including independence of action and decision making, as well as a readiness to work honestly towards the realization of the UN goals in Libya.

In other events that could affect the Libyan situation and create a well-defined international background, we can note the conflict that has erupted since June 5 between Qatar and a group of influential Arab states, namely Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and a number of other countries. These states have demanded, in a written ultimatum of June 14, that Doha state its compliance in refraining from supporting terrorist and extremist groups, including the ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ that has thoroughly entrenched itself in Libya. It is no accident that the Tobruk government (with the exception of Fayez al-Sarraj himself) has immediately joined these states in enforcing these requirements. Moreover, Riyadh, Cairo and Abu Dhabi firmly support H. Haftar and his allies in the fight against the thugs from Misurata.

Thus, we are witnessing a whole chain of events in June 2017, including the military victories after June 20 of Marshal H. Haftar over the remnants of Islamist groups in Benghazi, slowly but inevitably knocking out a few trump cards from the hands of Fayez al-Sarraj and Islamist groups, essentially weakening them. Maintaining contacts with them is, of course, the norm for any self-respecting diplomacy, but it is obvious that it would be short-sighted and dangerous to stake on them to enter into any binding deals with them (which some capitals still do).

Nothing will help Fayez al-Sarraj now. This includes even the demonstrative support of NATO, with its Secretary-General (Jens Stoltenberg) whom he met on June 22. He only remains with part of the seaport of Tripoli under his control and zero support from the tribes, which is the most important factor in the formation of any kind of political structure in Libya. His government has failed to garner the support of the parliament, and after a threefold rejection of its nominated candidates, will no longer be approved.

We have already dwelt on the increasingly complex situation of the ‘Muslim Brotherhood’. The Skhirat agreements themselves have already expired and are held literally ‘on a wing and a prayer’. Of course, there is a UN Security Council resolution in support of them, but under the newly developing circumstances, it needs to be revised. The global super powers must understand this, and act accordingly.

Maxim Yegorov, a political observer for the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine ‘New Eastern Outlook’. 

In the landmark document, as emphasized in the new declaration of the Pope of Rome Francis and the Patriarch of Coptic Theodoros (Theodore) the Second, both churches recognized that, in accordance with the apostolic tradition, they profess “one faith in one Triune God” and “in the divinity of the Only Begotten Son of God … a perfect God with respect to His divinity, a perfect man with respect to his humanity.” It was also recognized that “Divine life is given to us and nourishes us through the seven Sacraments” and that “we honour the Virgin Mary, the Mother of True Light,” the “Mother of God.” At that time, it was a breakthrough talking point in the inter-Christian dialogue, especially given the fact that the Coptic Church is Miaphisite (pre-Chalcedonian), which is interpreted (unjustly) by many people as its monophysitism.

In the new declaration, the parties have taken the next steps towards each other in order to demonstrate their readiness to deepen the interaction of the two branches of Christianity. As the spiritual basis for this interaction, it was stated: “Together, we can bear witness to such fundamental values as the sanctity and dignity of the human life, the sanctity of marriage and family, and the respect for all the creatures that God entrusted to us. In the face of many modern problems such as secularization and the globalization of indifference (an interesting new term ­ Author’s note), we are called upon to offer you a common answer based on the values of the Gospels and the treasures of our traditions. In this regard, we are pleased to begin a deeper study of the Eastern and Latin fathers, and we will promote fruitful exchanges in pastoral life, especially with regard to catechesis and the mutual spiritual enrichment of monastic and religious communities.”

Although Francis’ long-awaited April visit to Egypt was intended primarily to give impetus to the theological rapprochement of the two churches, the movement towards eucharistic communication, which was confirmed by the contents of the Joint Declaration, took place when the Copts faced one of the most brutal attacks in their history, and their churches were desecrated on April 9-10 by two terrorist attacks organized by Isis, which claimed almost 50 lives. This tragic coincidence gave a special colour to the visit of the Pope, which the Copts perceived as an act of spiritual support to their coreligionists, which was also reflected in the Joint Declaration, which stressed the desire to ensure the peaceful coexistence of Christians and Muslims in one land. In fact, the apostolic fathers had to resort to the secular liberal rhetoric. To defend the Copts rights, the Declaration includes a note that “all the members of society have the right and duty to participate fully in the life of the country, enjoying full and equal citizenship and cooperating in the building of their country. Religious freedom, including the freedom of conscience, is rooted in human dignity, and is the cornerstone of all other freedoms. This is a sacred and inalienable right.”

It should be recognized that it was precisely this effect (the positioning of the Pope as defender of all Christians, who does not deny liberal values at the same time), which the Vatican counted on. This effect was enhanced by the content of Francis’ meeting with the Imam of the largest Islamic university Al-Azhar University, Ahmed al-Teyib, dedicated to the issues of inter-religious dialogue and the struggle against extremism under religious banners. It is true that Francis was not afraid to talk in public about certain fundamental things concerning religious extremism stained in the colours of Islam. In his address to the Imam, President of Egypt Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and members of Government and Parliament, he explicitly recalled the Christian stage of Egyptian life as a world heritage, and stated the need for the unconditional respect of inalienable human rights, such as the equality of all citizens, freedom of religion and freedom of expression, without any distinction. At the same time, (being a true liberal) he referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Chapter 3 of the 2014 Constitution of Egypt, which covers the Copts’ rights for the first time ever in the history of Egypt.

In other words, the objective of the visit was achieved, from the Vatican’s point of view: the visit managed to make another step towards the Copts, bringing them closer, and also scored important points for the Pope in the eyes of Egyptian Christians as a defender of their rights.

If we look at this visit today, we believe that it should not be perceived within the usual rivalry between Moscow and Rome for the souls of Christians and the influence in the Christian world. In any case, not only in this respect. In recent years, all the Christian churches have faced the same challenges that were mentioned in the Joint Declaration of the Pope and the Coptic Patriarch, namely, the aggressive imposition of global neo-liberal “values”, as well as the attempts of certain political forces to completely destroy the Christian presence in the Middle East, where it originated, by the hands of the Muslim Sunni fanatics. These phenomena are pushing all the Christian churches toward rapprochement, and it is no longer important who is heading this movement. In this context, we pay attention to the proximity of the points stated during the visit of the Pope to Cairo and the Joint Declaration of February 13, 2016, promulgated after the meeting of the Pope and the Patriarch of Moscow and the All Russia Cyril in Havana. Both documents, with varying degrees of detail and deepening in theological issues, point out one thing: the need for Christians around the world to jointly resist the new challenges and threats that are now truly existential for Christianity.

Let us recall a few words from the Havana Declaration: “Our eyes are directed, first of all, towards those regions of the world where Christians are being persecuted. In many countries of the Middle East and North Africa, our brothers and sisters in Christ are being exterminated as whole families, villages, and cities. Their temples are subjected to barbaric destruction and plunder, shrines are desecrated, and monuments are demolished. In Syria, Iraq, and other countries of the Middle East, we are painfully watching the mass exodus of Christians from the land where the spread of our faith began and where they have lived peacefully since the apostolic times together with other religious communities.” We are urging the international community to act immediately to prevent the further displacement of Christians from the Middle East. Raising our voice in defence of the persecuted Christians, we also sympathize with the sufferings of adherents of other religious traditions that are victims of the civil war, chaos, and terrorist violence.”

Therefore, the visit of Pope Francis to Cairo and his meetings with Islamic representatives, primarily with the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, can also be viewed as the implementation of the provisions of the Havana Declaration, including its call for the initiation of an inter-religious dialogue, and, thus, we should welcome it. Apparently, we are witnessing a historical process, which Christians began to overcome their millennial contradictions on a number of theological issues that has long prevented the joint protection of their spiritual values. Obviously, if Christians find a common vision of the foundations of their religion and get a new spiritual energy that will help them reach new horizons, it will be much easier to build a dialogue with the newly reopened Islamic ummah. Today, in the face of aggressive atheism of neoliberals and radical Islam, it becomes a matter of physical survival for them.

Maxim Yegorov, a political observer for the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine ‘New Eastern Outlook’.

On April 22,

Behind all these decisions is the iron logic of power. If we speak about raising salaries and paying benefits, then the emergence of this decree is dictated by the need to calm the maturing opposition in the Saudi society and the frustration that is flaring up in social media. They accuse the young prince, who is responsible for the economic, defense and foreign policy of the country, of living wastefully against the backdrop of the misfortunes of the Saudi population (although those are quite relative compared with other countries), which has begun to live significantly worse, given the fall in oil prices and measures to reduce the budget deficit, which amounted to a record $75 billion in 2016. Muhammad bin Salman is also accused of inept, ill-conceived reforms that do not produce proper results, and of delaying the costly military campaign in Yemen, which has not yet yielded any results. In this context, the increase in salaries and the payment of bonuses were absolutely necessary to strengthen the young prince’s shaky positions. The royal finances now provide some opportunities for this because of the stabilization of oil prices at $52-55 per barrel, although they are not enough to solve the problems of a budget deficit – for this the price for oil would need to soar to $78 per barrel, which so far looks unrealistic.

With regard to appointments, if you do not take into account the technical appointment of ministers, all other posts have been given to princes of royal blood. The appointment of another one of King Salman’s sons – Khaled – as ambassador to Washington should be considered crucial. Sending this experienced pilot of the Royal Air Force to the US capital (he had already worked there before in the embassy) is another step taken by the king to strengthen his family’s position in the top-down governance and personal success of Muhammad bin Salman in confronting his cousin and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef. The Minister of Internal Affairs’ trump card has always been a special relationship with Washington, which in December 2014 “approved” him as the most acceptable candidate for the United States for the post of future king. Now the benefit of privileged ties with the White House is being adopted by Salman himself, controlling them through his two sons.

Moreover, Muhammad bin Salman has already managed to visit Washington this year (March 13-15) and, in the framework of his program of diversifying the Saudi economy, ‘Vision 2030’, is offering contracts to American companies, according to knowledgeable people, in the shape of a fantastical $3 trillion (!!!). And this in addition to the previously negotiated defense contracts totaling $200 billion – the largest in the history of mankind.

As for the appointment of young princes of royal blood as governors and deputy governors of several provinces, the desire of the king to strengthen his power is also evident here. In the royal family, too, the opposition had been growing for a long time, fueled by Mohammed bin Nayef, because of too much of a concentration of power in the hands of Mohammed bin Salman. Now this “skewedness” seems to have been eliminated. The governors are appointed princes from different royal clans (children and grandchildren of the kings of Saud, Khaled and Faisal), which maintains a semblance of balance in the royal family. However, it is clear that this concession to the princes’ ambitions is only intended to muffle their discontent with the immense power of Mohammed bin Salman, and as a way to not give them some key powers. The governors, of course, play an important but subordinate role in the system of power of the kingdom. The main decisions are taken by the Cabinet, which is completely controlled by Mohammed bin Salman, and made up of his own planted protégées.

At the same time, it is clear that, although the changes that have taken place should be regarded as another victory of Muhammad bin Salman in the struggle for power, it cannot be considered complete and final. Much depends on how long King Salman will live and whether he, together with his sons, will be able to strengthen the position of the informal leader of their clan, Muhammad bin Salman, so that after the death of his father, if he is not already king, he becomes crown prince.

Behind Muhammad bin Nayef, apart from the post of Crown Prince, there is a powerful force in the person of the Minister of Internal Affairs, whose weight only grows in the face of increased terrorist threats from “Islamic State”, which has created a network of cells throughout the country and periodically makes itself felt with so far small, but fairly regular terrorist attacks. Another factor of his strength is the tribes that always stood on his father’s side, and now support Mohammed bin Nayef himself. The third force is the clerics, who are terrified of Mohammed bin Salman’s secularly oriented reforms, but are still silent so as not to undermine the power of the king. They are especially concerned about the program for creating “small entertainment towns” which will be reminiscent of Disneyland and Las Vegas in one, only without the alcohol. They have repeatedly criticized the head of the Entertainment Department, Ahmad Khatib, who is close to Muhammad bin Salman, for trying to open cinemas, theaters and propagandizing secular art exhibitions and museums. But if they feel that the sphere of entertainment is oriented, according to A. Khatib, towards “people’s happiness” and takes the faithful out of the mosques, they can organize protests with the support of the tribes that will hurt the image of the king and the Kingdom.

Another challenge for Muhammad bin Salman is the war in Yemen. It has gone on now for two years with no end in sight. The recent victims of the Saudis in this country are 12 officers killed as a result of an army helicopter crash, which only highlighted once again the complete absurdity and futility of this military campaign, started as a blitzkrieg in the name of strengthening the monarchical ambitions of the young prince. The absence of visible victories (except for the liberation of Aden from the rebels) is a delayed-action mine. The war is depleting the country’s economy, what with low oil prices, and is intensifying criticism of the leadership. The latest measures for paying additional salaries to servicemen temporarily relieve discontent, but are unlikely to have a lasting effect. The young defense minister faces an unenviable choice – either to go on to the end, to seize the port on the Red Sea – Al-Hudaydah (through which 90% of humanitarian supplies go) with the chance of a military victory, but with the risk of a subsequent major humanitarian disaster, or decide on a very politically painful compromise with Houthis ​​and Salehists. So far the choice is made in favor of the military route, despite extremely dangerous consequences…

And, finally, Mohammed bin Salman should in the near future achieve visible success in the implementation of the “Vision 2030″ program – the chief and most beloved of his offspring. It is through this goal that he is now shuffling the team of young reformers recruited from the business community. But things are still tough. Although the prince himself is a workaholic, and around him there are many qualified specialists, the quality of the bureaucratic apparatus leaves much to be desired. The deadline for the publication on the IPO of the “Saudi Aramco” – the main diamond in the crown of the Saudi kingdom’s economy – is also moving forward. At first, 2017 was forecast, now it is said that this will happen in 2018. But international experts are skeptical – so far the company has published too little data to be able to talk about its transparency, and hence attractiveness for future investors…

In other words, one of the rounds in the fight for power has been won by King Mohammed bin Salman, thanks to his recent decrees, but the scales in the battle for the throne still waver…

Maxim Yegorov, a political observer for the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine ‘New Eastern Outlook’.

The recent US attack against Syrian forces deployed at the Shayrat airbase carried out with the use of a total of 59 Tomahawk missiles at the beginning of this month has marked a new milestone in Washington’s military and political game in the Middle East. Yet, it seems this new approach is more clear-cut than previously pursued by previous US administrations.

What then precisely is current US President Donald Trump and those forces behind him up to this time? There are factors apparent on the surface, even though they are in no way connected with the pretext of this recent attack. In fact, what we’re witnessing has been a carefully orchestrated media campaign aimed at relieving the extensive amount of media pressure that has been put on the new US president after allegations that he’s unable to challenge Vladimir Putin and pursue a comprehensive policy in the Middle East. So, the missile attack can be regarded as a “creative” way of making Trump’s critics go quiet. The sitting American president seems to be convinced that after such a radical change in Washington’s policies he will have his hands untied which may allow him to make adjustments to the way the country is actually being run.

Additionally, there is a distinctively visible a desire to somehow humiliate Russia held among circles in Washington today, based on the assumption that it is neither capable, nor willing to protect its sole ally in the Middle East. At the same time, the Trump administration remains convinced that Moscow will continue seeking dialogue with Washington, so presumably it will not dare to answer such provocative attacks with any reckless steps of its own.

What is also of great importance to Washington is a need to show its regional allies that after its miserable defeat in Syria, it will still continue supporting the ongoing struggle of the Sunni monarchies against Iran that first got itself “entrenched” in Syria. It’s believed that such strikes may raise the morale of the the Persian Gulf monarchs and show America’s commitment to the defense of its national interests in the region, both real and imaginary. The White House wants to secure this objective as quickly as possible since Obama’s days in office have corroded the trust that the majority of regional allies had in Washington.

At the same time, a signal is being sent to those forces in the Arab world who have already begun to reorient toward Russia who appears a more reliable partner overall, short on promises but is willing to fulfill those that it has made, like its pursuit of and utter and complete destruction of terrorist forces in Syria. The message is addressed to Egypt, Iraq, as well as the region of Libya controlled by the parliament in Tobruk. The ultimate goal is to show Moscow’s “helplessness” in the face of American military might. Additionally, Ankara is being hinted that it shouldn’t defy NATO’s rules or it may regret its decision.

From a strategic point of view, these strikes have actually managed to weaken the Syrian Air Force, which has until now been inflicting massive loses upon the ranks of pro-Western terrorists, now the latter have a narrow window of opportunity to strike back and Trump knows it.

As for the reasons for this reckless step that are not directly connected to Russia or Iran, it’s pretty clear that Trump decided to come to rescue of Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel, as their support ratings have hit rock bottom in the middle of respective pre-election periods.

If all the above mentioned tasks are to be summarized, it is that all of them follow a pattern that could serve as the best proof yet that the era of a unipolar world has come to an end. In spite of Trump’s actions, the US will not and cannot change the course of its faltering foreign policy under any president. If it at some point chose to force its soldiers to pack and go home, Washington would find itself in the middle of nowhere with 20 trillion dollars in debt on its hands and no additional lands or resources to expand into. After all, American politicians recognizing the obvious – that the economic initiative is in the hands of China, and military-political initiatives – in Russia’s, means an end to the dollar era. That is why we’re witnessing Washington’s desperate attempts to seize this initiative, to undermine Russia’s geopolitical positions and get an upper hand yet again.

It’s true that Washington’s reckless moves may result in it securing certain short-time goals and scoring propaganda points, but this won’t change the larger geopolitical picture. Russia will not accept America’s dictate and will not abandon its major ally, so it will be taking military steps to strengthen Syria’s defense capabilities, which in turn will lead to even faster rapprochement between Moscow, Tehran and Damascus.

Can we expect Trump to to expand upon this current bluff? It’s quite possible. But he needs to be cautious so as to not jeopardize America’s relations with China. Firing missiles at the height of Xi Jinping’s visit to the US was the worst idea one could come up. Aggressive steps against Syria, in which Beijing is partially invested in as well, appears to be an ill-conceived means of intimidating the Asian economic powerhouse. And China can hardly be interested in a partner that does only fight terrorism on paper, while continuing to sponsor it. Chinese politicians remain mindful of the Uyghur separatists at this time, since they’ve been seeking ways to make Xinjiang “independent.” So, such acts of aggression will alert the already cautious government in Beijing. So it’s true that a Tomahawk can inflict a lot of damage, but is Washington aware of the exact extent of damage it has inflicted upon itself by firing them?

Maxim Egorov, a political commentator on the Middle East and contributes regularly for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. 

Donald Trump’s

As a matter of fact, the region lies in smoldering ruins. Let’s start with Iraq. The country remains deeply divided because of the policies pursued by the previous US presidents, that decided to start the “democratization” of the Greater Middle East with the invasion of Iraq. Yet, they failed to manage the post-war situation in Iraq properly, which resulted in Washington de-facto splitting the country along sectarian lines. In this situation Iraqi Sunnis found themselves at a disadvantageous position, which resulted in their rapid radicalization, therefore they’ve been joining ISIS en masse for years. From this point of view, Donald Trump hasn’t been too far from the truth when he stated that it was the Obama administration that created the monster known as the Islamic State. Additionally, Washington has been providing support to the local Kurdish communities, which were promised independence during the Bush era for their support of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

One can describe all this as strategic miscalculations or deliberate evil designs, depending on his or her position. Adding to all this, there’s been a pretty clumsily managed campaign to capture Mosul. The three months of fighting have led to no strategic successes so far, with the only result being the exodus of radical militants to Syria, where they try to capture Deir ez-Zor and gain a foothold in Palmyra.

But it’s safe to say that Iran has been taking full advantage of every mistake Washington has ever committed in Iraq, which resulted in Donald Trump announcing his intention of increasing the pressure that the US puts on this country. Otherwise Washington can pretty much kiss its Arab allies in the Persian Gulf goodbye, along with its ability to influence the course of events in the main oil-producing region of the world.

The situation in Syria is even worse for Washington. The US has managed to discredit itself in the eyes of almost all the parties of the conflict – Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, while there’s no use mentioning Iran and the Syrian government itself. Therefore, those players in search of a viable solution that could put an end to the bloody conflict decided to leave Washington overboard. Now the new US administration has the opportunity to watch the negotiations in Astana silently, having no say for the first time over the last twenty-five years. Trump remains silent on this issue, while only putting forward the steps to establish cooperation with Russia in the fight against ISIS that Moscow, as a matter of fact, has been proposing all along.

In Libya the Obama administration has suffered a crushing defeat, which the former president, unlike other crises his administration created, had the courage to recognize. The failed state that exists in the place where Libya was, instead of having a stable government that was toppled by the US-sponsored intervention, now has three governments, along with two parliaments and several armies. The UN peace plan that has been actively supported by Washington hasn’t been implemented, so the so-called government of national unity led by Washington-backed Fayez al-Sarraj is literally “on its last legs.” On the other hand, the chairman of the Libyan parliament in Tobruk, Aguila Saleh Issa and the commander of the armed forces of Libya, Marshal Khalifa Haftarthat are getting increasingly popular among the local population, therefore they are trying to establish ties with Moscow. Donald Trump has made no comment so far on the situation in Libya, but his sharp opposition to all sorts of Islamists implies that he would rather support the above mentioned secular tandem, instead of supporting Fayez al-Sarraj that has discredited himself a long while ago.

Another disaster for the United States has been the Yemeni crisis. Instead of stepping aside, while observing the parties of the conflict being entangled in their own contradictions, the Obama administration declared last year that it had a comprehensive peace plan to implement. The plan, designed as an initiative of four states: USA, Saudi Arabia, UAE and the UK, failed with a big bang. What is even worse, it was rejected by the Saudi protégé – the official Yemeni President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, since he clearly saw that its implementation would have forced him to step down. Apparently, Dondald Trump hasn’t even come close to reviewing this matter, and he will have to think hard how to save the old-time US ally Saudi Arabia, that got itself trapped in a bloody war that can result in the rapid expansion of the Iranian zone influence in the region.

However, the greatest failure of American foreign policy in the Middle East has been the Palestinian-Israeli settlement. Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize prematurely for his alleged commitment to the settlement of this conflict due to his “historic” speech at Cairo University on June 4, 2009. But what we receive was an even greater number of Israeli settlements occupying Palestinian lands and the complete disappearance of any prospects for the emergence of a Palestinian state. As a result, Obama irritation was manifested in Washington, for first time in 70 years of the US-Israeli relations, not blocking an anti-Israeli resolution in the UN Security Council, that would condemn new Israeli settlements being constructed. Thus, the US policy has been deeply discredited in the eyes of the Palestinians, and in the eyes of Israelis. In this matter Donald Trump has made a bet on Israel by announcing the transfer of the American embassy to Jerusalem. Even though the Palestinian problem is not playing the same role in Middle Eastern affairs as it used to, the decision can be pretty costly for the new US administration and its relations with Arab satellites, for sure, if Trump wasn’t planning to turn his back on the Arab allies of the US all along.

In other words, the overall picture looks pretty depressing for the White House. The absence of simple solutions, the tense relations with such allies as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, can be too much for the Trump administration to swallow. And it doesn’t seem that an alliance with Israel will be enough for Washington to preserve its influence in the region. The most rational approach one can propose today is to choose priorities wisely. Initial success can be reached by carrying out a joint operation with Russia against ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria. It must be an ambitious and decisive goal. Then, Trump can pursue the Syrian settlement by sending his representative to Astana. Washington can still apply pressure on the pressure on the Syrian Kurds, that it has been supporting for a long while. However, to achieve this Trump will have to abandon the traditional US policy of supporting Kurdish independence. Additionally, both Moscow and Washington can work hand in hand on the Libyan and Palestinian-Israeli settlements. If those topics are not addressed, Trump is running the risk of getting drown in the Middle Eastern mess that Obama created.

Maxim Egorov, a political commentator on the Middle East and contributes regularly for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.