MFS - The Other News

                    Morning Posting.

• Updated !Earthquakes in the last 24 hours in the world seismic activity situation update: Turkey 7.3 - 5.9  !More info here.

• Japan : For the most accurate info on the nuclear disaster go to : Paul Langley's Nuclear History Blog.Here.

• Did You Know Feds Will Temporarily Cut Off All TV and Radio Broadcasts on Nov. 9 ?(TheBlaze).If you have ever wondered about the government’s ability to control the civilian airwaves, you will have your answer on November 9th.On that day, federal authorities are going to shut off all television and radio communications simultaneously at 2:00PM EST to complete the first ever test of the national Emergency Alert System (EAS).This isn’t a wild conspiracy theory. The upcoming test is posted on the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau website.Only the President has the authority to activate EAS at the national level, and he has delegated that authority to the Director of FEMA. The test will be conducted jointly by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through FEMA, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Weather Service (NWS).In essence, the authority to seize control of all television and civilian communication has been asserted by the executive branch and handed to a government agency.The EAS has been around since 1994. Its precursor, the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS), started back in 1963. Television and radio broadcasters, satellite radio and satellite television providers, cable television and wireline video providers are all involved in the system.So this begs the question: is the first ever national EAS test really a big deal?Probably not. At least, not yet.But there are some troubling factors all coming together right now that could conceivably trigger a real usage of the EAS system in the not too distant future. A European financial collapse could bring down U.S. markets. What is now the “Occupy” movement could lead to widespread civil unrest. And there are ominous signs that radical groups such as Anonymous will attempt something major on November 5th- Guy Fawke’s day.Now we know in the event of a major crisis, the American people will be told with one voice, at the same time, about an emergency.All thats left to determine is who will have control of the EAS when that day comes, and what their message will be.Hmmm......Who has the autority to switch it back on?Read the full story here.

• Obama’s bold gamble on Iraq.(AlArabiya).By L. Paul Bremer III.In announcing that all American troops will be out of Iraq by year’s end, President Obama has placed a big bet on the future of Iraq and on America’s position in a restive Middle East. While the initial public response to his decision, in America and in Iraq, may be positive, this will not shield him from the consequences if his bet goes sour. The single most salient lesson in countries emerging from tyranny is the importance of providing security for the population. This is not just one of many tasks that must be addressed: security is the essential prerequisite to progress in the other two foreseeable challenges – in Iraq, Egypt, and now Libya: beginning a process of political reform and starting economic reconstruction.The American government learned this lesson the hard way in Iraq. For several years after Saddam was thrown out we lacked the comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy and sufficient forces needed to provide security to the Iraqi people. Predictably, security deteriorated as an unholy alliance of Sunni and Shia terrorists, the first backed by al Qaeda, the other by Iran, took advantage of the situation. The deficiencies in strategy and troops while Iraq’s own national security forces were still in training produced a bloody and chaotic year in 2006.There were two game-changers in Iraq.

1. President Bush’s courageous decision to change strategy and to surge forces. Contrary to widespread skepticism in the American political class, these decisions gradually brought the security under much better control.

2. The almost unimaginable stoicism of the Iraqi people. In many individual months in 2006 and early 2007, Iraqi casualties from terrorism were greater, as a percent of the country’s population, than the casualties America experienced on 9/11. Fortunately, by the summer of 2011 violence had fallen against both Americans and Iraqis.

Despite this progress, every Iraqi –Sunni or Shia, Arab or Kurd, man or woman – I have spoken to during the past year has insisted on the importance of keeping American forces in Iraq even after the expiration of the current Status of Forces Agreement. Despite a ramped-up program of military training, Iraqi military leaders have privately and publicly asserted that Iraq’s security forces are not yet prepared to protect the country. American military commanders share this assessment, which is one of several reasons a year ago the commanders on the ground recommended seeking Iraqi agreement to keep some 20,000 American troops there after 2011.Without access to all the diplomatic exchanges between our countries, it is difficult to judge whether a better outcome was possible. Certainly Iraqi national feeling against granting American forces immunities was strong. Clearly, no president could agree to station them there without those immunities. But it is the essence of good statecraft to resolve conflicting interests. And it is clear from his words and body language that President Obama’s heart was not in winning the war in Iraq. Indeed, when he announced the withdrawal he merely noted that “America’s war in Iraq is over.” That is cold comfort to the millions of Iraqis who are left to fend for themselves in one of the world’s most dangerous regions.The administration’s ill-disguised desire to get out of Iraq, mirrored by its decision to wage the war in Afghanistan on a political timetable, placed Iraqi politicians who wanted a residual American presence in an impossible situation. How could they stick their necks out to push for American troops when the administration gave them no cover?In his announcement the president noted that American troops have been in Iraq nine years. But no war can be waged or won on a timetable. NATO forces are still in the Balkans after almost 20 years. American forces have been in Europe and Asia for more than a half-century. During my service in Europe I saw firsthand how those troops added to American security by deterring conflict in two vital areas of the world.Perhaps quiet negotiations can still find a way to reverse this policy. American troops in Iraq would serve our joint interests in four ways:

First, by finishing the job of training Iraqi forces to defeat domestic enemies and deter foreign ones. Effective training requires professional American troops and Iraqis working side by side until the Iraqis are capable of handling the job themselves.

Second, by fighting al-Qaeda and Iranian-backed terrorists. Both are still active in Iraq. Our retreat will leave them a tempting vacuum.

Third, by continuing to provide an unspoken “buffer” along the Green Line that separates Iraqi Kurdish and Arab forces in the north.

Most importantly, a continuing American military presence would make it clear that America has enduring interests in the volatile Middle East and does not intend to let al Qaeda or Iraq’s neighbors, especially the terrorist states of Iran and Syria, benefit from any weakness of ours.Hmmm.......After handing over Tunesia toAl-Qaida and the MuslimBrotherhood receiving Egypt ...now presenting Iraq to Iran?Read the full story here.

• Obama's Foreign Policy: Manchurian Candidate or Keystone Kop?(DocsTalk).By BarryRubin.Virtually since the day President Barack Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, I’ve been reporting in great detail on his disastrous Middle East policy. I believe nobody in the world has written more thoroughly documented words and provided more factually based analysis explaining why this policy is so bad than me.And so I am often asked whether I believe this situation is caused by a deliberate, conscious effort to destroy U.S. interests, subvert Israel’s existence, and promote anti-American Islamists on the part of the president and his closest colleagues.No, I answer, it is the result of ignorance, incompetence, and a ridiculous ideological approach that has nothing to do with reality. But, I add, it certainly says something that the policy is so bad that it makes people think that deliberate treason is a credible explanation. Recently, an expert I respect who likes my work asked me the following:“At what point do "oblivious," clueless," or "misguided" no longer describe what is going on here? “At what point do we say that the top levels of the U.S. government and our national security leadership are wittingly complicit in supporting a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of large parts of the Middle East? As you lay out these events and facts, there is simply no other conclusion to be drawn: this is deliberate.

“When does it become treasonous or at the very least an abrogation of Constitutional oaths of office and dereliction of duty?

I believe the first and last paragraphs are wrong but the second one is partly right. They don’t fear the Muslim Brotherhood getting into office because they think it won’t happen or can be turned into a good thing. This is horrible but not consciously evil. How can we explain Obama’s behavior on the Middle East? I’m not the least bit surprised or baffled. I do not think the fact that this isn’t “treasonous” is a mitigating circumstance. Beyond a certain point, gross incompetence and systematic stupidity are inexcusable sins in politics even if not crimes. The sentence should be voting them out of office as soon as possible.The great French diplomatist (and thoroughly evil human being) Charles de Talleyrand put it this way: “This is worse than a crime, it’s a blunder.” You can feel some respect for an evil genius cleverly following his plan but none at all for a fool putting his country’s interests and the lives of millions of people at risk, refusing to change course even when his strategy is obviously failing.You just have to sit at dinner with a State Department guy, for example, who tells you in great detail how the battle went within the bureaucracy over accepting Islamism as something good for the United States or watch how the CIA generated studies fixed to exclude truth in arguing Islamism isn't a threat. It's only mysterious if you don't see it up close.Here is what we should see:

First, Obama thinks he’s very knowledgeable about Islam, based on very limited personal contacts. Aside from his profound misunderstandings, his experiences come from Indonesia, the place where mainstream Islam was more moderate than in any other Muslim-majority country. And even that predates the infusion of Wahhabi and al-Qaida thinking even in that country.In my opinion, the worst single blunder of Obama in the Middle East was his Cairo speech telling people in the region that they should perceive their primary identity as Muslim rather than in national terms. The idea that political Islam could be some asset for the United States--rather than an enemy being held back largely by nationalism--was like putting a big bomb next to a fragile dam. Yet Obama thought it was some act of far-sighted genius on his part because he could tame political Islam.

Second, Obama is a narrow-minded and arrogant man who understands little about international affairs or the profound differences of other cultures. He neither listens to ideas outside his own conception nor heeds proof that he has failed. A clever evil genius adjusts himself to circumstances, determined he will always look good. Obama is merely wrong and incompetent, openly displaying ignorance.

Third, his conception of the United States and its role in the world should render him unfit to be president. He views the United States as evil and aggressive historically while also rejecting the most basic concepts of U.S. interests and the conduct of international affairs.He deliberately refuses to show leadership; doesn’t think American diplomacy should reward friends and punish enemies; believes concessions and apologies can win over enemies; and really doesn’t understand the importance of credibility, deterrence, and leverage to frighten and constrain enemies. He is obsessed with popularity, that least important factor in international affairs. In his mind, there is a sneaking suspicion that the enemies are the good guys.In these ideas, Obama is similar to the far left in America and Europe. The problem, of course, is that none of those clueless impractical intellectuals is commander-in-chief of the world’s greatest power.

Fourth, he has two sets of people eager to misadvise him. One is the ideologues he has brought into government, especially in the National Security Council and several other appointees (David Axelrod and Ram Emanuel are of little or no importance on these foreign policy decision-making issues.) The other is a significant portion of the CIA.Large elements in the State and Defense departments are horrified by Obama’s Middle East policy. The Defense Department is burdened with new commitments and handed impossible missions by a man its officials know looks down on them, has little sympathy for their problems, and no appreciation of their professional culture.State gasps as Obama dismantles a Middle East policy it has spent decades building and nurturing. Briefly, that policy was alliance with relatively moderate states—Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia—to fight radical regimes and movements. They dislikeed Israel because they thought it got in the way of links to Arab powers. But they certainly don’t want their pet regimes overthrow, systematically insulted, while the president cares more for the very radical Islamists they were fighting to keep out of power!What is the alternative, now dominant view? This interpretation considers the virtually sole danger to be al-Qaida and its terrorist attacks against America. In order to ensure Islamists aren’t radicalized to behave that way, they want to coopt radical Islamists they consider far less threatening. They insist that such Islamists are far less extreme than people like me say and that holding power will moderate them. This travesty is born of Western ignorance about Islam and Islamism; discounting the power of ideology and the nature of these societies; assuming that everyone thinks alike in wanting more material goods; putting all their effort on stopping another September 11 (even at the expense of massive strategic losses); presuming moderation is inevitable, etc.These people believe that the “Turkish model” is just fine and dandy rather than seeing it as an extremely dangerous way for radical Islamists to seize and hold power to carry out anti-American and aggressive goals. This misunderstanding is key to their failure to understand Arab politics or Islamism, as is the idea that Facebook kid community organizer yuppies are any match for Jihadists.We’ve seen this before many times. Major General William Elphinstone, commander of the British army in Kabul, Afghanistan, in 1842, was no traitor. He simply believed the Afghan rulers who promised him safe passage back to India. Of 12,000 soldiers and civilians, only about 12 survived the subsequent massacre.Other examples include pre-World War Two appeasement and the post-World War Two view that Third World Communists could be coopted, or those portraying Fidel Castro as a misunderstood moderate and Mao Zedong as an agrarian reformer. Another case was the idea that Yasir Arafat could be turned into a pragmatic moderate by giving him power and meeting most of his demands.Then there are the current European domestic policies of funding and backing to radical Islamists in order to “defeat” Jihadists. When Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said last February that the Muslim Brotherhood was a harmless reformist group, he meant it. That’s what his CIA briefers told him. The only administration correction was that it isn’t a “secular” group. All the really damaging misconceptions were fully accepted by the Obama Administration.So the administration is either helping Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood to get into power or risking this happening (wrongly thinking they won’t win elections) not because it wants to hurt America but because it is stupid and ignorant enough to think that will ultimately help America. Islamists will be moderated by power and the “need” to be pragmatic; or won’t win because the people want smart phones instead of suicide bombers; or they will love a U.S. government that is so nice to them.Similarly, this administration doesn’t hate Israel so much as think that country is foolish for not following policies that in fact would risk its existence. If only Israel realized how easy it would be to have a stable peace with a Palestinian state next door based on the 1967 borders, the Obama Administration thinks, the Israelis, too, would join the party and be much better off. Why are they such a stiff-necked people? This is all wrong and disastrous. But as George Orwell—who understood these things—once said, some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual will believe them.None of these points makes the current leadership and policy more acceptable or good. Having Gomer Pyle and Forrest Gump in power (without those innocent nice-guy fool’s humility and moral compass) is not better than having a James Bond villain or Dr. Evil running things.How much does this matter? Not a great deal. The motive for having terrible policies is far less important than the fact that the policies are terrible. Moreover, one can prove what's happening is a disaster but can never irrefutably prove why it is happening.A fool is worse than a traitor if only because more people will vote for him.Hmmmm......The question is "Who's the Fool"?Read the full story here.

• In first statement after his father’s death, Saif al-Islam Qaddafi vows to fight on.(AlArabiya).In his first statement after the death of his father Muammar Qaddafi, Saif al-Islam vowed to continue fighting “rats” and NATO forces in a one-minute audio message aired Saturday by a Syrian-based TV channel.“I say go to hell, you and NATO behind you. This is our country, we live in it, we die in it and we are continuing the struggle,” Saif al-Islam said, denying media reports that he had been captured and wounded in a final assault by revolutionary fighters on the coastal city of Sirte, where his father and brother Motassim were detained and killed under disputed circumstances.“I received a message from tribes in Bani Walid about a general consensus between them to respond to threats from the gangs of rats ─ revolutionaries and the NATO alliance,” Saif al-Islam said.Saif al-Islam’s whereabouts still remain unknown but a military commander of the interim National Transitional Council (NTC) said on Sunday that its fighters were surrounding an area where he was believed to have been hiding since fleeing Sirte last Wednesday.Commander Abdel Majid Mlegta was quoted as telling Reuters that the area is in the south of the town of Bani Walid, 150 km (100 miles) southwest of Tripoli. Bani Walid fell to the fighters earlier this month after putting up a determined resistance for several weeks. Saif al-Islam was widely reputed to have been based in the town during its resistance, before moving to Sirte.Mlegta said Qaddafi’s Niger-based security chief, Abdullah al-Senussi, had been in contact with Saif al-Islam to try to help him escape and flee to the neighboring country “but our brigades are encircling this area south of Bani Walid.”Mlegta did not elaborate on reports that NTC fighters had searched offices recently used by Saif al-Islam and had found material indicating that he had been researching areas south of Bani Walid include places called Wadi Zam Zam and Wadi al-Mandoum.Read the full story here.

• New euro 'empire' plot by Brussels.(TheTelegraph).The proposal, put forward by Herman Van Rompuy, the European Council president, would be the clearest sign yet of a new “United States of Europe” — with Britain left on the sidelines.The plan comes as European governments desperately trying to save the euro from collapse last night faced a new bombshell, with sources at the International Monetary Fund saying it would not pay for a second Greek bail-out.It was also disclosed last night that British businesses are turning their back on Brussels regulations to give temporary workers full employment rights, with supermarket chain Tesco leading the charge.Meanwhile, David Cameron is attempting to face down a rebellion tomorrow by Tory MPs in a vote over staging a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU.Ministers expect 60 or 70 MPs to defy the party’s high command and back the call for a referendum, while some rebels claim the final toll could be up to 100 — about a third of the parliamentary party.Downing Street has upped the stakes dramatically. Last night, No 10 sources insisted they would impose a three-line whip — effectively ordering all Tory MPs to fall in line.Mr Cameron, who yesterday took personal charge of the effort to persuade MPs to back the Government, has come under intense pressure from Cabinet colleagues to try to defuse the revolt by offering concessions or a way out to rebels. Sources say a handful of parliamentary private secretaries — the lowest rung on the government ladder — might resign.The single Treasury plan emerged in Brussels yesterday as Europe’s finance ministers tried to find a way out of the crisis engulfing the eurozone. A full-scale rescue plan could cost about £1.75 trillion.British sources said Mr Van Rompuy, who is regarded as being close to the German government, suggested plans for a “finance ministry” to be based either in Frankfurt or Paris. The EU already has its own “foreign ministry”, headed by Baroness Ashton, the former British Labour minister, and based in Brussels.A senior Coalition source told The Sunday Telegraph: “I am well aware of arguments in Brussels and elsewhere in favour of a single Treasury. You’d get any number of different versions of 'Europe’ all running at very different speeds.”A series of meetings are due to be held over the next few days on the eurozone crisis that will involve the leaders of EU member states.Hmmmm......Flashback: 22 June MFS - The Other News:" A financial transaction tax which will allow the EU to raise its own tax, even set its own tax rates, without democratic oversight. "Where you heard it before?Read the full story here.

• Libya's liberation: interim ruler unveils more radical than expected plans for Islamic law.(TheTelegraph).Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, the chairman of the National Transitional Council and de fact president, had already declared that Libyan laws in future would have Sharia, the Islamic code, as its "basic source".But that formulation can be interpreted in many ways - it was also the basis of Egypt's largely secular constitution under President Hosni Mubarak, and remains so after his fall.Mr Abdul-Jalil went further, specifically lifting immediately, by decree, one law from Col. Gaddafi's era that he said was in conflict with Sharia - that banning polygamy.In a blow to those who hoped to see Libya's economy integrate further into the western world, he announced that in future bank regulations would ban the charging of interest, in line with Sharia. "Interest creates disease and hatred among people," he said.Gulf states like the United Arab Emirates, and other Muslim countries, have pioneered the development of Sharia-compliant banks which charge fees rather than interest for loans but they normally run alongside western-style banks.In the first instance, interest on low-value loans would be waived altogether, he said.Libya is already the most conservative state in north Africa, banning the sale of alcohol. Mr Abdul-Jalil's decision - made in advance of the introduction of any democratic process - will please the Islamists who have played a strong role in opposition to Col Gaddafi's rule and in the uprising but worry the many young liberal Libyans who, while usually observant Muslims, take their political cues from the West.Hmmmm......Anytime a muslim with a zebiba on his forehead is declared a ‘moderate’ Islamist, Check for Unicorns in the neigbourhood.Read the full story here.

• Canadian man in Saudi jail faces deteriorating health.(BikyaMasr).DUBAI: A Canadian man awaiting trial in Saudi Arabia is facing deteriorating health concerns, friends of the family have reported.According to The Canadian Press, Mohamed Kohail has been behind bars since 2007 on murder charges and had been sentenced to beheading by sword before the country’s Supreme Court overturned the death sentence in 2010.The Montreal resident, his friends and relatives said, has been waiting for a retrial since, but has developed a number of health problems as a result of his jailing.Sources close to the 26-year-old told The Canadian Press he had multiple operations this past summer for chronic tuberculosis — with the infection spreading dangerously close to his spinal cord.According to the report, he narrowly escaped paralysis earlier this year.Born in Palestine, Kohail and his younger brother Sultan moved to Canada with their family in 2000 and became Canadian citizens in 2005. They moved to Jedda in 2006.The Canadian foreign ministry has been hush over the jailing of one of its citizens, but in recent weeks has seemingly put increase pressure on the government in Riyadh to release Kohail and another Canadian citizen and his family who have also been detained in the country.Earlier this month, Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis said that the government must do more to pressure the conservative Gulf kingdom for their release.The MP has called on the government that Canada should, at the very least, “pressure for the children, two girls, aged 18 months and five years, to be released.” He said their jailing is a violation of international law and it should not matter what the parents are charged with.In a statement released by Karygiannis’ office, he said Majeed Uddin Ahmed, his wife Zareen and their two girls were picked up by police two weeks ago in Jeddah, where the family has been living for about four years.No information has been released on why the family was arrested.Read the full story here.

• Saudi Arabia - The Shadow of Prince Nayef.(DocsTalk).By Irfan Al-Alawi.With the death of Saudi Crown Prince Sultan Ibn Abd Al-Aziz early October 22 in a New York hospital, his brother, Saudi interior minister and second deputy prime minister Prince Nayef Ibn Abd Al-Aziz, now looms large in the world's attention as a possible successor to Saudi Arabia's current ruler, King Abdullah, who is now 87.Prince Nayef is a committed adherent of the hardliners in the Wahhabi sect and has resisted the cautious moves by King Abdullah to restrict Wahhabi dominance in the kingdom, which was founded in a marriage alliance of the Al-Saud family and the descendants of Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab, for which the radical doctrine is named. To this day, the head Islamic cleric in the kingdom is Abd Al-Aziz Al Ash-Sheikh, a descendant of Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab. The aging King Abdullah's limited reforms have included increased freedom of expression; appointment of representatives of the Saudi Shia minority, which is concentrated in the oil-bearing Eastern Province, to the consultative Shura council, which advises the king; measures for more participation of women in society, including announcement of limited electoral rights for women last month; separation of educational and religious authorities; dismissal of ultra-Wahhabi judges from the Saudi court system, and cuts in financing for the institution most despised by the Saudi public, the mutawiyin or morals militia, officially titled the 'Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice,' and often mis-called a morals police.In reality, the mutawiyin are not police in the normal sense, but a mob that harasses those they accuse of less-than-absolute fidelity to Wahhabi concepts: women who may let the un-Islamic but Saudi-imposed face veil (niqab) and long cloak (abaya) slip in public; couples that may be unmarried (and sometimes are attacked by the mutawiyin even if wed); people suspected of possessing alcohol in their homes; Shia Muslims; foreign Muslims participating in the hajj pilgrimage; non-Muslims; and anyone else the mutawiyin may allege to be violating Wahhabi strictures. As interior minister, Prince Nayef is their guardian and their abuses symbolize his role in the lives of many Saudis. King Abdullah has tried to make the mutawiyin accountable for its offenses against individual and public dignity.Prince Nayef is described widely among Saudis as an opponent of any measures intended to ameliorate the kingdom's oppressive image. He has rejected the notion that women should be permitted to drive or be granted any other liberalization of their status. He has disdained the introduction of voting in the kingdom. He has stood behind the most recalcitrant members of the Wahhabi clerical apparatus as they maintain their hold on religious life in the kingdom. He has declared that no Saudi terrorism suspect will ever be turned over to a foreign country.Yet Prince Nayef and his son Prince Muhammad Bin Nayef, who was targeted in a mysterious suicide-bomb attack in 2009, have supervised the Saudi program for abatement of Al-Qaida terrorism. Their program for fighting violent extremism has stressed a "light" approach based on "reeducation" of Wahhabi fanatics about their deviant views. In the 2009 bombing attempt on Prince Muhammad Bin Nayef's life, the young scion was recorded in a pleasant conversation, just prior to their meeting, with the man who killed himself when he came to visit, and, it was said, to attack Prince Muhammad Bin Nayef, in Jeddah. Prince Muhammad Bin Nayef was barely harmed.The main effect of Prince Nayef's campaign against Al-Qaida has been to "export" the Saudi cadres of the terrorist movement to Yemen, where they have organized Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). AQAP incited such actions against the U.S. as the Fort Hood massacre of 2009. Other AQAP conspiracies in the UK and U.S. have included targeting of aircraft, including the case of the "underwear bomb," employed in an attempt to bring down a jetliner over Detroit by Nigerian terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab at the end of the same year; Faisal Shahzad's placing of a truck bomb in Times Square in New York last year, and an endeavour to send bombs to Jewish synagogues in the U.S. via cargo courier services, also in 2010. In the last case, shipping numbers and addresses of the packages, in which explosives were placed, then handed to United Parcel Services and Federal Express offices in Yemen, were delivered by Prince Muhammad Bin Nayef to U.S. authorities... after the packages had been dispatched, but before they reached the U.S.The curious ease with which Prince Nayef and his son "handle" AQAP activities bespeaks an obvious question: is Prince Nayef's role that of a combatant against terrorism, or a figure who sees his mission as one of keeping Al-Qaida away from threats against the royal family and Saudi institutions? His fervent attachment to the Wahhabi creed seems to place him in the typical Saudi role of maintaining an alliance with the UK and U.S., which market Saudi oil and arm the Saudi defence establishment, while using Western money and security guarantees to promote the doctrines of the fundamentalists.The certainty of Prince Nayef's sinister reputation among the Saudi masses cannot be denied. He has declared "what we won by the sword we will keep by the sword." If Prince Nayef is elevated to the status of Crown Prince, and then succeeds King Abdullah as ruler, Saudis, other Muslims, and the world may expect a return of the kingdom to its old and worst habits. These will include suppression of internal dissent and of the forward-looking measures instituted by King Abdullah; attacks on non-Wahhabi Muslims; enhanced support for the mutawiyin as well as for jihadist adventurism in South Asia and elsewhere; and a more hostile line toward the UK and the U.S. As king, Nayef might continue to keep Al-Qaida out of Saudi territory, but it is doubtful he would act consequently against the sympathisers of the terrorists inside the Saudi elite, and their Wahhabi clerical enablers, as long as they do not threaten him, the Sudairis, and their accomplices. For the rest of the world, however, the shadow of Prince Nayef is long and menacing.While the effects of Prince Sultan's demise may be felt across the globe, only two things may be said with certainty about it, and it brings with it disturbing uncertainties, especially involving Prince Nayef.First, Crown Prince Sultan's death was not unexpected, since the seriousness of his illness – colon cancer – had been common knowledge for some time. But his biography included ambiguities, beginning with his age. According to an official statement, Crown Prince Sultan was 80 when he expired, although various media and related sources speculated that he might have been as old as 87.The other certainty about the death of Crown Prince Sultan is that Prince Nayef, aged 78 and his possible successor as Crown Prince, is feared profoundly by the kingdom's subjects for his extreme, retrograde views on Islam and the governance of the Saudi state. A new Crown Prince will be designated, but Prince Nayef, although treated by many foreign observers as inevitably next-in-line after Prince Sultan, may face significant opposition. Prince Nayef represents a genuine danger to the people of Saudi Arabia and the world, if he inherits the throne from King Abdullah.King Abdullah, a half-brother of Princes Sultan and Nayef, became monarch in 2005, with the death of the incapacitated King Fahd. Discontent between Abdullah, on one side, and the clan from which Fahd, Sultan and Nayef sprang, on the other, was already well-known in the kingdom and among foreign observers of its convoluted society. King Fahd, and Princes Sultan and Nayef, owed their power to membership in the influential set of full, blood brothers known as the Sudairi Seven, since they were all children of Princess Hassa Bint Ahmad Bin Muhammad Al-Sudairi, a favorite wife of King Muhammad Bin Abd Al-Aziz Ibn Saud, founder of the kingdom in 1932.The Sudairis are a powerful family in the central Arabian wasteland of Nejd, where the fundamentalist, exclusivist, radical and violent Wahhabi ideology emerged almost 300 years ago. With King Fahd and Crown Prince Sultan gone from the scene, the Sudairi clique at the summits of the monarchy now consists of five, among whom Prince Nayef is second in age, but the most important.King Abdullah, as a half-brother of the Sudairis, is not included in their preferred circle. He established an Allegiance Council in 2006-07, made up of 34 sons and grandsons of Ibn Saud, to administer the royal succession process. Most Saudis and foreign commentators interpreted the introduction of the new body as a means of diluting the power of the Sudairis, since they are a small minority within it. If the choice of a successor to Crown Prince Sultan is put in the hands of the Allegiance Council, Prince Nayef could be passed over in favour of someone else.In 2009, Prince Talal Bin Abd Al-Aziz challenged the appointment of Prince Nayef as second deputy prime minister, warning that this could make him 'heir apparent' to Crown Prince Sultan. The naming of Prince Nayef as second deputy prime minister was seen as a concession to the Sudairis. But Prince Talal called for strengthening the role of the Allegiance Council, of which he is a member, in the succession process. Still, no possible candidate to replace Crown Prince Sultan other than Prince Nayef has been suggested.King Abdullah's rise to the Saudi throne reflected a decline in the power of Princes Sultan, Nayef, and the rest of the Sudairis. Prince Sultan had served as minister of defence, in which position he oversaw extensive military contracting with the UK and U.S., and his son, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, was Saudi ambassador to Washington for more than 20 years, from 1983 until 2005. Prince Sultan enjoyed visiting the U.S. His son, Prince Bandar, was most famous for his cultivation of prominent Americans, his embassy parties, and his access to the White House, thanks to which Saudi Arabia gained advanced weaponry and military support.Although a full brother to the late Crown Prince Sultan, Prince Nayef is known for very different attitudes from his brother.Read the full story here.

• Iran says 8 of 13 trapped divers are dead.(CTV).Tehran, Iran — Eight divers trapped underwater with five others after their support ship sank three days ago in the Persian Gulf have died, Iran's official news agency reported Sunday. Mohammad Rastad, an official in charge of the rescue operation, said the bodies of the eight divers, six of them Indians, have been recovered. He said there is no word about the fate of the remaining five missing divers. Out of 73 people on board, 60 were rescued. He said six bodies were found earlier. "Bodies of two more divers have been recovered from the depth of 72 metres," IRNA quoted Rastad as saying. The divers -- seven Indians, five Iranians and one Ukrainian -- were part of a team installing an underwater oil pipeline and were inside a pressurized diving chamber when their Koosha-1 ship sank in the Persian Gulf on Thursday afternoon in stormy seas. The diving chamber was on board the ship when it sank, and the divers were already inside to avoid having to pressurize and depressurize for their dives. The Iran-flagged Koosha-1 left Thursday from offshore oil rigs near the underwater South Pars gas field, the largest in the world, shared by both Iran and Qatar. The ship was involved in installing underwater pipelines. It sank in the Persian Gulf about 25 kilometres off Iran's coast.Read the full story here.

• Saudi seizes toy guns mocking Prophet’s wife.(Emirates24/7).Saudi Arabia seized nearly 1,500 Chinese-made toy guns at a local market found to be issuing sounds that abuse and mock the Prophet’s (Peace Be Upon Him) wife, Aisha, newspapers in the Gulf kingdom reported on Sunday.Members of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, the most influential law enforcement authority in the country, seized the toys during a raid on a shopping centre in the western town of Jeddah.“The guns were found to be issuing sounds which are considered mocking and offending against the Prophet’s wife,” the newspaper said, quoting Commission spokesman in Jeddah, Turki Al Zahrani.He said sellers of those toys, mostly Asians, apparently do not know they offend Islam as the guns issue sounds in Arabic.Read the full story here.

• Analysis: India being ‘contained’ by growing Chinese footprint in Pakistan.(BigPeace).According to an Indian analysis, China’s rapidly increasing footprint in Pakistan-governed Kashmir and in Afghanistan represents an increasing military danger to India. There are some 3000-4000 Chinese, including troops, in Pakistan-governed Kashmir, stationed near the Line of Control (LOC) that separates the Pakistani and Indian regions, building major infrastructure projects. Kashmir and Jammu (K&J) were the site of an extremely bloody genocidal war between Hindus and Muslims following Partition, the 1947 war that following the partitioning of the Indian subcontinent, creating the states of India and Pakistan. The region is still disputed, and in recent years, China has become firmly and unequivocally on the side of Pakistan, making it clear that any war in the region will be on two fronts for India. In addition, China has been aggressively bidding for large energy and infrastructure projects in northern Afghanistan, meaning that China will have a strong presence in Afghanistan as the Americans withdraw. At that time, the Islamist Mujahadeen terrorists will be diverted away from Afghanistan towards K&J. The analysis concludes that India must increase its own footprint in Afghanistan. Generational Dynamics predicts that India and Pakistan will be re-fighting the genocidal 1947 war. Institute for Defence Studies & Analyses (IDSA).Read the full story here.