Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON For 444 days, Iranian militants held 52 Americans hostage in Tehran, leaving emotional scars for them and their loved ones and dooming Jimmy Carters presidency.

The revelation that five months before their release, former Texas Gov. John Connally encouraged Iran to prolong the ordeal left hostages bitter.

444 days, Rocky Sickmann, a 22-year-old Marine guard when the U.S. embassy fell, said Monday. I will never regain those lost days. ... Each day you didnt know if you were going to live or die.

Ben Barnes, a protg of Connally who served beside him as lieutenant governor, told The New York Times about a three-week trip they took to Middle East capitals during the crisis.

Connally, angling to impress Republican nominee Ronald Reagan in hopes hed be named secretary of state or defense, asked leaders to send word to Iran not to release hostages before Election Day.

With Carter, 98, receiving end of life hospice care, Barnes told The Times, he needed to unburden himself of the secret.

History needs to know this happened, Barnes, now 84, said. Carter didnt have a fighting chance with those hostages still in the embassy in Iran.

To survivors, the revelation was more appalling than stunning. Democrats and hostages suspected the Reagan camp had a hand in prolonging the ordeal, given the obvious political benefits.

Its just typical. Politicians do all sorts of things to achieve whatever political agenda they have in mind, said William Royer Jr., now 91 and a resident of Katy in suburban Houston.

On Nov. 4, 1979, when militant college students overran the embassy after the fall of the U.S-backed shah, Royer was an English teacher at the U.S. Information Agency.

Over the years hes recounted the torture being stripped naked and forced against a wall in front of a firing squad, testing his faith that he was more valuable alive than dead.

I have a lot of respect for Reagan and his policies. And I thought he was a great president, Royer said, calling Carter one of the few relatively honest men to hold the job. I have a great deal of appreciation for President Carter. He had a bad deal.

David Roeder, a 41-year-old deputy Air Force attach when the ordeal began, said Tuesday he was baffled that anyone went out of their way to make him and his colleagues suffer longer than necessary.

Its hard for me to understand how any American can do that to any other American, Roeder, now 83 and a retired Air Force Colonel, said from his home in Pinehurst, N.C.

He still has the utmost respect for Reagan, whose knowledge or involvement in Connallys moves may never be proved or disproved, given that most of those involved died long ago.

His regard for Carter has grown in light of Barnes revelations. As for Reagan, he said, I cant accept the fact that he would be involved in something like that.

The crisis spawned ABCs Nightline, providing a nightly update on Carters inability to end the humiliation.

Politically, Election Day Nov. 4, 1980 was the deadline to save his presidency.

If we had gotten the hostages home, wed have won, Carters White House communications director, Gerald Rafshoon, told The Times in response to Barnes account. Its pretty damn outrageous.

Thomas Lankford, a lawyer for the hostages and their families since 1999, said Monday that delaying the release could only have inflicted harm.

In the last four to six months as captives, many deteriorated physically and mentally, he said. You dont want to add even a day to that kind of treatment.

The first 30 days, Sickmann was tied to a chair and forbidden to speak outside of interrogations. He spent more than a year in a room with two others, often subjected to physical and mental abuse. Until his release, he only went outside seven times.

Rumors circulated among the hostages that theyd become victims not only of the militants but of domestic U.S. politics. Sickmann refused to believe that anyone could do such a thing to fellow Americans diplomats, military personnel and civilians no matter the prize.

If it did happen, we must make sure that this never happens again, said Sickmann, now 66 and a resident of St. Louis, where he works for Folds of Honor, a group that provides scholarships to families of fallen and disabled service members.

It was traumatic for a hostage, but it was traumatic for my poor family and everybody else involved, he said. We as America, were much better than this.

Barnes did not respond to a message left at his office by The Dallas Morning News.

Records dug out by The Times showed that he and Connally left Houston on July 18, 1980, on an oil company jet. The trip included stops in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel. They returned on August 11.

The Times report included a photo provided by Barnes of a meeting with President Anwar el-Sadat of Egypt. Its unclear who else they met with, or whether the message reached Tehran.

The hostages remained captive another five months and nine days until Reagan took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 1981.

Barnes said he only realized the purpose of the trip after the first meeting with an Arab leader.

Connallys message to each, he recounted to The Times, was: Look, Ronald Reagans going to be elected president. And you need to get the word to Iran that theyre going to make a better deal with Reagan than they are Carter. It would be very smart for you to pass the word to the Iranians to wait until after this general election is over.

Connally, who died in 1993, served two terms as Texas chief executive. He ran Lyndon Johnsons campaigns in Texas and served briefly as secretary of the Navy under John F. Kennedy before running for governor. Hed held the job for 10 months when Kennedy was assassinated in downtown Dallas. Connally, in the front seat, was badly wounded.

In 1971, President Richard Nixon named him treasury secretary. Two years later he switched parties and as a Republican, sought the nomination for president in 1980. When he dropped out that March, he threw himself into helping Reagan.

Barnes told The Times that hes certain Reagans campaign chair William Casey, later CIA director, knew about the mission to undermine Carters efforts to free the hostages, because they met just after the trip, at an American Airlines lounge at what was then known as Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Airport.

Casey, who died in 1987, wanted to know whether they were going to hold the hostages, Barnes recalled.

Kathryn Koob, one of two women among the hostages and a 42-year-old embassy cultural officer at the time, said Monday that if someone felt that that was important for them to do at that time, I feel sorry for them, that they would use other peoples lives in that way.

By phone from her home in Iowa, Koob who penned an account titled Guest of the Revolution said shes not interested in recriminations against Connally or anyone else.

Were home safe and thats the important thing, she said. When youve been through something like that you realize what people are capable of doing, and you move forward with your life. It happened and its over and anything we say today is not going to change what happened.

Read more here:
Iran hostages bitter that Connally stalled release to help Reagan - The Dallas Morning News

At the end of his recent video about the Chinese-Saudi-Iranian diplomatic deal on 10 March, the astute foreign policy expert Muqtedar Khan asks whether this breakthrough may lead to the "de-Americanisation of Saudi Arabia" itself.

It is an interesting question that reflects current realities pertaining not only to Saudi Arabia but also to the entire Middle East and North Africa (Mena) region.

Saudi-Iran pact: China's diplomatic coup puts US on notice in Middle East

Marco Carnelos

For the kingdom, one could conclude that it has already reached a point of no return. This, of course, does not mean that the Saudis are willing to end their close alliance with the US as such a move would be most detrimental to Saudi interests.

Let's, however, consider this sequence from the past year: first, US President Joe Biden vociferously, publicly, and repeatedly promised to make Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman a global "pariah" over the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. But he did nothing of the sort when he went to visit him - all smiles, reverence, and courtesy - and had his infamous fist-bumping moment caught on tape by all the cameras of the world.

During last July's visit, Biden essentially begged Bin Salman to increase oil production to try to fight US and worldwide inflation caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Not only did the crown prince refuse, but he did the exact opposite: Bin Salman actually decreased oil productionby two percent. That was despite the threats that Biden had levelled against him should the Saudis do that.

Once again, Biden did nothing but return home feeling and looking sorry, silly, powerless, and way out of his league. A heated exchange then took place between Biden and Bin Salman in October with threats of a Nopec bill by US members of Congress (lifting sovereign immunity from the oil cartel member states) and Biden warning the Saudis of "consequences" if Opec+ were to cut oil production.

To make this double-slap-in-the-face worse, since Russia is part of Opec+, MBS actually objectively helped Putin get more oil revenue to finance his "special military operation" and mitigate the effects of US sanctions, at a time when the US is engaged in a war against him.

Then to the repeated and increasingly bitter threats of Biden, Saudi Arabia responded with very firm and forceful (though not hostile) press releases from their embassy that they would always put their national interests first, and that no amount of pressure and threats from the US or anyone else could make them deviate from that.

Again, Biden had to swallow his pride. And now, this: the 10 March tripartite deal between Riyadh and Tehran announced in Beijing. It has not been emphasised enough how severe and humiliating a defeat this represents for the US.

First, apparently Washington wasleft out of these diplomatic negotiations and had nothing to do with it.

Second, as Khan says in his podcast, not only may it end Iran's isolation and further break the embargo the US has been working so hard to maintain since the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis of 1979, but the two powers who broke it are: a) China, the main US adversary in the world now, America's public enemy number one as they themselves claim in their rhetoric, as has become obvious in their inept and reckless foreign policy; b) Saudi Arabia, their top ally (after Israel) in the Middle East.

It has not been emphasised enough how severe and humiliating a defeat the 10 March Beijing tripartite deal represents for the US

That must hurt.

Third, it is not just its top strategic adversary that is replacing the US as a major peace broker (though we are not there yet, but it's at a minimum an excellent first step towards possible further rapprochement) but Beijing is doing so in what had always been the US's own backyard, the Middle East.

Fourth, the fact that this deal was announced in Beijing seems to symbolise the shift eastwards of Middle Eastern foreign policy and alliances, in a series of "Asian pivots" and "Look to the East" (as Iran calls it) strategic realignments.

Fifth, and finally, from a public relations, global image, and beyond that, actual soft-power viewpoint, this is absolutely disastrous for the US.

The diplomatic breakthrough and success of China makes it even more obvious and cruel by comparison the never-ending slew of major foreign policy failures, defeats, and debacles of the US for decades. Its new aura as a major, and totally unexpected peace-broker only highlights further the loss of influence and ineptitude of the US itself.

Worse, China is coming out of this as a state power interested in and able to bring about peace, detente, normalisation, and de-escalation. It has proven itself capable of pulling stunning diplomatic coups like this one with finesse, persistence, intelligence, and agility, while in sharp contrast, the best the US could do is flood entire nations with weapons to keep the Ukraine war going "as long as it takes", and drag the world in another forever war of choice, now as American as apple pie.

Saudi-Iran reconciliation: How China is reshaping the Middle East

China now looks like a brilliant peacemaker while the US looks just like the warmonger it actually always was, if one just looks at its history since its very bloody beginnings in the genocide of First Nations populations all the way to Vietnam and Iraq.

Xi is presented in official American discourse as a problem, something the world should be afraid of. Yet, after this recent breakthrough, one wonders who looks like the real problem in the Middle East or elsewhere.

Xi's recent speeches and China's strategic documents have made it clear this diplomatic operation is only the beginning of an ongoing effort to turn China into a major international broker.

It started in the Global South - Africa included - and is now possibly expanding into Europe and the Russia-Ukraine war, with the Chinese president's recentthree-day visit to meet Vladimir Putin. Xi commented pointedly to the Russian president: "There are changes going on now that haven't happened for 100 years. And we are moving these changes together."

China is in this for the long term, and Xi has made it clear he is eager to extend his services to anybody to help solve other conflicts.

The question of whether Saudi Arabia can undergo a "de-Americanisation" of its country can be extended to the entire Mena region. Like the rest of the world, with the exception of the EU, these states are finally extracting themselves from US control and domination even if it means striking tactical partnerships with authoritarian regimes like China.

The de-Americanisation question has one ultimate test: whether Saudi Arabia and other oil producers will trade in a currency other than the dollar

The Middle East has actually already entered a largely de-Americanised era - the era of fluctuating, realist, pragmatic, fluid, radically open, and quite unpredictable hybrid alliances in order to give itself more space to manoeuvre, and more options for the sake of sovereignty.

The next moves in that direction are already being planned and are on the horizon. For example, both Saudi Arabia and Iran want to join the BRICS group, while Saudi Arabia has applied for membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation where Iran is already an observer state.

But the answer to the "de-Americanisation" question will be provided, maybe soon, by one ultimate test: whether Saudi Arabia and other oil producers after it will trade in a currency other than the dollar. Only then would there be a true revolution, and what observers have called "the nuclear option" (against the US).

And not surprisingly, Saudi Arabia, pushed by China itself and many others who would love to see that happen, is actually considering this.

Given that dollarisation of the global energy market has always been the lynchpin of the US domination of the world economy itself, this would indeed be a nuclear blast.

And it may now just be a matter of time, possibly a mere few years.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

See more here:
Saudi-Iran deal: Towards the de-Americanisation of the Middle East? - Middle East Eye

Tuqa Khalid, Al Arabiya English

Published: 23 March ,2023: 02:56 AM GST Updated: 23 March ,2023: 03:15 AM GST

It added: The two ministers agreed to hold a bilateral meeting soon, in order to pave the way for the reopening of embassies and consulates between the two countries.

At the beginning of the call, the two exchanged greetings and congratulations on the occasion of the holy month of Ramadan, the ministry statement read.

This followed the March 10 signing of the landmark agreement between Saudi Arabia and Iran, brokered by China, to re-establish diplomatic ties and reopen embassies after seven years of heightened tensions.

Prince Faisal had said in an interview with Saudi-owned Al Sharq Al Awsat newspaper on March 12 he was looking forward to meeting his Iranian counterpart soon as per the agreement. We are preparing to resume diplomatic relations between our countries within the next two months, and its natural that we exchange visits in the future, he said.

Originally posted here:
Saudi FM agrees with Iranian counterpart to hold a bilateral meeting soon - Al Arabiya English

Sanaa, Yemen Like thousands of Yemeni parents, Ali Mohammed has lost children fighting in the countrys long-running war.

But in his case, one son, Fahd, died in 2018 fighting for the Saudi-backed Yemeni government, while the other, Nashwan, died the following year fighting for their enemies, the Iran-aligned Houthi rebels.

Now, Saudi Arabia and Iran have agreed to restore diplomatic ties after years of tensions,leaving Yemenis like Mohammed surprised and confused.

Today, they are ready to be friends, offer concessions to meet their interests, while our country is awash with ordeals, said Mohammed, a resident of the capital, Sanaa, which has been under Houthi control since 2014.

The Chinese-brokered rapprochement announced by Saudi Arabia and Iran last week in Beijing came after several rounds of talks, including in Iraq and Oman.

It will lead to the reopening of their respective embassies within two months and the activation of a security cooperation arrangement, with the two regional powerhouses pledging to respect state sovereignty and not interfere in each others internal affairs.

But while Riyadh and Tehran may have moved to bury some of their differences, it is unclear whether the same will happen in war-scarred Yemen.

Saudi Arabia has led a military intervention in Yemen since 2015 in support of the internationally recognised government fighting the Houthis. Iran, meanwhile, has said it supports the rebels politically but denies sending them weapons, as alleged by Saudi Arabia and others. The Houthis in recent years have targeted a number of oil facilities and airports in Saudi Arabia and its coalition partner, the United Arab Emirates.

On Monday, the Yemeni government and the Houthis announced that they had agreed upon a prisoner swap that would also include the release of 15 captured Saudis. It was not immediately clear whether the timing of the announcement was coincidental or not, but questions remained over any other confidence-building measures on the back of the Beijing deal.

Adel Dashela, a Yemeni political researcher and author, said he did not believe the Saudi-Iran normalisation would turn Yemen into a stable country overnight.

I do not think the Saudi-Iran agreement will largely affect the Yemeni file, Dashela told Al Jazeera. It is not easy to end the Houthi takeover of Sanaa, retrieve the state weapons they seized and force them to abandon the use of weapons.

Commenting on the potential motives for reaching an agreement, he pointed to Saudi Arabias security needs and Irans internal crises and the impact of the sanctions imposed by the United States.

That is why the two sides agreed to make concessions and resume relations.

The war in Yemen has killed hundreds of thousands of people, displaced millions and caused the worlds worst humanitarian crisis, according to the United Nations. More than 23.4 million people, or three-quarters of Yemens population, require assistance, including 2.2 million youngsters who are acutely malnourished.

Abdulrahman, a 53-year-old retired military officer in Sanaa, said the Saudi-Iran deal reminded Yemenis that their countrys plight is due to the lack of united leadership.

Should the country have seasoned and wise political leaders, we would not plummet into this chaos in the first place and let foreign powers control our fate, said Abdulrahman, who did not want to give his full name.

He said the massive casualty figures after years of fighting have exacerbated the warring sides animosity.

The Yemeni proxies have been willing to commit to their regional backers instructions in pursuit of military and political victories. That is why our country has been a hub of humanitarian suffering.

Meanwhile, both the Houthis and the Yemeni government welcomed the Riyadh-Tehran detente, expressing their desire for peace.

The region needs the resumption of normal ties between its countries, said the Houthis chief negotiator, Mohammed Abdulsalam.

Likewise, the government said it always has faith in dialogue and diplomatic approaches for resolving disputes. In its statement, the government hoped that the Saudi-Iran deal would form a new regional relationship phase.

For Abdulrahman, such statements did not come as a surprise.

They [Houthis and the government] are obedient forces, unopposed to the Saudi and Iranian initiatives and plans.

He said it was normal for a country to forge alliances in its region and beyond, but added that these relations should not render our country servile to any foreign power.

That is what Yemens elites failed to do, Abdulrahman said.

Mohammed, meanwhile, said he felt Yemen had been betrayed.

They have put Yemen on fire for seven years in pursuit of their conflicting agenda, said the grieving father. Today, they begin a new chapter of cooperation and partnership. So, what were they fighting for in Yemen?

Read more:
War-weary Yemenis greet Saudi-Iran deal with caution - Al Jazeera English

IRAN-POLITICS-MILITARY

Iranian soldiers march during the annual military parade marking the anniversary of the outbreak of the devastating 1980-1988 war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, in the capital Tehran on September 22, 2022. Credit - AFP-Getty Images

As we observe the twentieth anniversary of the Iraq War, which claimed more than 4,600 American lives and countless Iraqis, we must make an honest assessment of the war. The war cost the U.S. trillions, upended Middle East stability, and ultimately benefited Irans aggressive and expansionist agenda by capturing much of the political and military institutions in Baghdad and Damascus. Despite its tremendous cost, the war weakened Americas geostrategic position and damaged our national credibility.

What can be learned from this calamity? As authors of the U.S. governments definitive study on the Iraq War, two somewhat conflicting central points stand out. First, the war should never have occurred. Second, once the war began, it should not have been abandoned without leaving behind a stable Iraq, even if that meant staying for years.

Invading Iraq in 2003 was strategic folly and one of the worst foreign policy decisions in the history of the Republic. Tainted and inaccurate intelligence provided justification for disarming Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction that didnt exist. Pretending that Iraq could be the hearth for democracy in the Middle East or that it was abetting Al Qaeda terrorists were similar delusions. But the decision to invade defied an even larger truth, one that was clear even before the war. Iraq provided a physical and practical buffer to Iran, a country that few disputed had an active weapons of mass destruction program in 2003 and which has consistently demonstrated the intent to use such a capability alongside its terrorist objectives.

Iran, which regularly calls for the destruction of the U.S. and actively supports our enemies, was the larger and clearer threat to our interests both then and now. Regime change in Iraq destroyed a status quo that, by extension, benefitted the U.S. In essence, Iraqs geostrategic position in 2003 helped regional security by focusing Irans attention and resources next door. In addition to this geopolitical damage, the preemptive invasion, conducted without U.N. Security Council authorization and on the basis of dubious intelligence, squandered our international standing and goodwill, which was abundant in the wake of 9/11.

Story continues

Read More: There Were Many Ways to Die in Baghdad

Once the invasion occurred and Iraqs security forces evaporated those same considerations should have driven U.S. policy to restore the countrys stability, vis--vis Iran. The region represents a vital strategic interest for the U.S., as does blocking the expansion of Iranian influence. Unfortunately, the U.S. chose to ignore this reality and when politically expedient, withdrew from Iraq and hoped for the best. Beyond the error of the initial invasion, withdrawing was nearly as significant a strategic error, placing Iraqs future into the hands of a corrupt and sectarian Prime Minister who was intent to establish Shia domination and Iranian alignment. While Iraqs condition had improved significantly since 2003, sufficient signs existed in 2011 that progress was fragile. Prime Minister Nouri al Malikis sectarianism and authoritarianism, toxic components that would lead to further destruction of Iraq, had been on full display and reported to Washington. Iraq, shattered by decades of war, sanctions, and corruption, needed longer to heal and needed American help to prevent an Iranian takeover.

Although we had decided that we were done with Iraq and all its associated challenges, Iraq wasnt done with us. American strategic myopia enabled Malikis government to kill or disenfranchise Sunnis and financially isolate the Kurds, paving the way for the rise of ISIS and a return of U.S. forces. We are still in Iraq today, and still without a status of forces agreement that was used for political cover to end our military presence in 2011. But todays Iraq looks very different. Iranian-backed militias, on the Iraqi payroll, now outnumber the Iraqi Army. The Ministry of Defense now includes officers and generals who are designated terrorists. Iranian aligned militias have captured state resources through political representation in Parliament and by controlling key posts in lucrative ministries. Irans influence now waxes in an uninterrupted arc from Tehran to the Mediterranean, traipsing across Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

Retaining U.S. forces in Iraq would have been a difficult decision for a war weary America. But a residual force that was closely tied to key political objectives and aimed at reducing Iranian influence could have prevented the treacherous strategic situation we face today: Iraq as a broken and devastated nation, serving as a base and transit point for Iranian forces. Luckily, the U.S. retains some tools to steer Iraq to a more constructive and stable future. The U.S. can impose high economic costs on the Iraqi military and government to remove Iran-backed terrorists from its payroll, withhold U.S. banknote transfers that inexplicably continue despite their laundering by Iran, and remove sanctions waivers so Iraq can free itself from an artificial energy dependence on Iran. And perhaps most importantly, the U.S. must militarily deter Iran so that it retracts rather than expands its regional aggression. Only these measures are likely to reverse the tailspin of Iraqs perilous future, a future that we set in motion twenty years ago.

The rest is here:
How Iran Won the Iraq War - Yahoo News