Local media reported Abdelli was charged with insulting state officials and offending public morals.

The decision comes amid heightened criticism from the performer toward Kais Saied, whom he has mocked in recent satirical content.Speaking from Paris, where he now resides, Abdelli said the verdict was intended to intimidate artists and suppress critical voices.

“This ruling is aimed at intimidating artists, silencing free and critical voices. It is a political verdict,” he said, adding that being sentenced over his work reflected broader concerns about freedom of expression.A court spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment.

Abdelli, 56, has long been known for his political satire and caricatured portrayals of Tunisia’s leaders. His performances gained prominence after the Tunisian Revolution, which led to expanded civil liberties following the ousting of former president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.

However, rights groups say freedoms have eroded since 2021, when Saied consolidated power and began ruling by decree. Critics argue that these measures have weakened democratic institutions and enabled prosecutions targeting journalists, activists and opposition figures.

In recent years, several opposition leaders, along with journalists and business figures, have been detained on charges including conspiracy against state security, corruption and money laundering.Saied has rejected accusations of authoritarianism, saying that freedoms remain guaranteed while emphasizing that no individual is above the law regardless of their status.

The case underscores ongoing tensions in Tunisia over the boundaries of free expression and the role of satire in political discourse more than a decade after the uprising that triggered the wider Arab Spring.

By invoking Arab Spring rhetoric and courting Pakistani connections, Wangchuk inadvertently echoes a playbook that has devastated entire regions.

Sonam Wangchuk, the Ladakhi educationist and activist once celebrated as the inspiration behind Bollywood’s “3 Idiots,” has lately transformed from a reformist voice into a figure of controversy. Known for founding the Himalayan Institute of Alternatives, Ladakh (HIAL), he became the face of local agitation for statehood and constitutional protections under the Sixth Schedule.

His hunger strike earlier this year won him significant attention but also drew criticism for what the government described as “provocative” remarks.

When addressing young Ladakhis, Wangchuk invoked the imagery of Gen-Z protests and explicitly compared them with the Arab Spring uprisings. The consequences were immediate: four people died and over 80 were injured in violent clashes, exposing how quickly peaceful calls can spiral when rhetoric crosses a line.

For a man under investigation by India’s Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for alleged violations of India’s Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) and questionable foreign links—including a controversial trip to Pakistan on February 6 this year—the comparison to the Arab Spring raises troubling questions.

Why Invoke the Arab Spring?

The Arab Spring has become a cautionary tale. Initially romanticized as a youth-driven democratic wave, it was later revealed to have been supported—if not orchestrated—by a complex network of foreign funding, non-governmental organizations, and the American Deep State. What began in Tunisia spread like wildfire across Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Yemen, toppling regimes but leaving behind smoldering wreckage.

The Middle East paid the heaviest price: once-stable nations descended into civil war, terrorism flourished, and millions were displaced. A decade later, Libya remains fragmented, Syria devastated, Yemen on the brink of collapse, and Egypt still grappling with the aftermath of political upheaval.

For Arab societies, the term “Arab Spring” is no longer synonymous with reform—it is shorthand for chaos, foreign meddling, and broken states.

It is against this backdrop that Wangchuk’s casual invocation of the Arab Spring appears not just reckless but deeply revealing. Why would an Indian activist, championing local grievances, align his rhetoric with one of the most foreign-manipulated regime change projects in modern history?

The Pakistan Connection and Exploitation of Influencers

Equally significant is the timing of Wangchuk’s visit to Pakistan on February 6, 2025. Islamabad has long used the cover of cultural exchange, intellectual dialogue, and activism to infiltrate Indian discourse.

Pakistan’s intelligence playbook thrives on cultivating influencers—artists, reformists, journalists, and social media personalities—who can shape narratives at home and abroad.

The method is subtle but consistent: present Pakistan as a victim of geopolitics, project grievances against India, and amplify dissenting voices within Indian society. From Bollywood exchanges in earlier decades to digital influencers today, Pakistan has perfected the art of weaponizing “soft” platforms for hard outcomes.

Take, for instance, Indian influencer Jyoti Malhotra, who has come under scrutiny for her connections with Pakistan-linked forums. Malhotra’s participation in dialogues hosted by organizations with shadowy funding raised eyebrows in New Delhi, reinforcing how cross-border platforms can be misused to normalize Pakistani positions.

Wangchuk’s visit, therefore, cannot be seen in isolation—it fits a troubling pattern of Indian intellectuals being courted, celebrated, and occasionally manipulated across the border.

Honey Traps, Cultural Fronts, and the Old Game of Taqiyyah

Pakistan’s tactics are not confined to polite cultural dialogues. Honey trapping—luring targets into compromising situations—has been a frequent tool of its intelligence services, ensnaring not only soldiers but also politicians and journalists. The aim is simple: extract information, secure leverage, and influence narratives.

Beyond espionage, Pakistan routinely uses the language of arts, reforms, activism, and cultural exchange as a facade. NGOs, student forums, and peace-building seminars are often the velvet glove over the iron fist of propaganda. By elevating select Indian voices who echo their lines, Pakistani handlers create echo chambers that undermine India from within.

This duplicity is best understood through the Shiite concept of Taqiyyah—a doctrine allowing concealment of true intent under threat. While theologically nuanced, Pakistan’s statecraft has weaponized it in the crudest form: presenting a peaceful, reformist face abroad while quietly sponsoring militancy, terrorism, and subversion at home.

For decades, Islamabad has perfected this Janus-faced approach—smiling in dialogue while plotting in deception. Wangchuk’s entanglement, whether naïve or deliberate, risks making him another pawn in this strategy.

Lessons from the Region: A Warning to India and the World

The Wangchuk episode must not be viewed in isolation but against the broader regional backdrop. South Asia has already witnessed a series of regime-change operations influenced by external forces.

In Bangladesh, foreign-backed campaigns have repeatedly destabilized governments, while in Nepal, Gen-Z protests often reflected wider geopolitical contestations.

Sri Lanka’s economic collapse triggered protests that bore unmistakable signs of external manipulation, and in Pakistan, the cycle of elite capture and engineered street movements has become a recurring pattern.

Now, whispers of a similar attempt in India cannot be dismissed lightly. By invoking Arab Spring rhetoric and courting Pakistani connections, Wangchuk inadvertently echoes a playbook that has devastated entire regions.

For Generation Z and Millennials in India, the message must be clear: protest is a democratic right, but it must be indigenous, accountable, and free from foreign agendas. Imported slogans, borrowed narratives, and externally funded movements rarely serve the people—they serve the puppeteers.

For the international community, particularly in the West, it is time to acknowledge the scars of the Arab Spring and resist the temptation of engineering similar experiments elsewhere. Stability, not chaos, should be the benchmark of global engagement.

Sonam Wangchuk’s journey from an educational reformer to a controversial agitator illustrates the thin line between activism and manipulation. By evoking the Arab Spring, traveling to Pakistan, and operating under the shadow of foreign funding, he has raised questions that go far beyond Ladakh’s statehood.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

Dalia Ziada

As Saied contemplates his next move, the country’s political Islamists plot their way back to power

Tunisia’s path is not yet clear, either to Tunisians or to the world. The country that lit the flame on the Arab Spring is at a crossroads. The threat of authoritarianism has once again reared its head and there are worrying signs that Tunisian democracy may be its victim, but are these distant clouds on the horizon, or is this already a looming spectre?

Elected at the end of 2019, the Tunisia of today is increasingly the ‘new republic’ of Tunisian President Kais Saied. At least, that is what he has been trying to achieve ever since his unforeseen power grab in July 2021, when this retired law professor and defender of the constitution dissolved parliament and decided to rule by decree.

Any ‘new republic’ will be free from the Muslim Brotherhood, which is worthy of celebration if it does not simultaneously open the political door to the political Salafists, as was seen in Egypt. Concurrently, Saied’s new system of state governance may represent a reversal of hard-won civil and political rights, swept away under the prerogative of economic reform. The potential for regression here is worthy of worry.

The New Republic

The new constitution has been perfectly tailored by Saied to enhance his presidential powers. To outsiders, it stands as a warning that Tunisians may be growing more tolerant of slowing political reform in return for accelerating economic reform. Tunisians have been bragging about their decade of peaceful political transformation since the overthrow of former president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, and of being the only Arab Spring country to continue along this trajectory, but today’s toxic mix of inflation and unemployment may yet put the brakes on this transformation, while simultaneously creating fertile ground for Saied’s one-man enhancement project.

The term ‘new republic’ is originally Egyptian. It was first coined by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi to highlight the social and economic developments made during his first seven years in power. El-Sisi played a central role in ousting the Muslim Brotherhood from government in Egypt in 2013, which prompted a new constitution to be written and El-Sisi to be voted in as state president.

Saied, the conservative retired law professor, waged a war on officialdom when the mood on Tunisian streets was febrile. Protesters had been calling for the political elite to be held accountable, particularly for corruption and economic mismanagement, which was seen as having exacerbated the consequences of the pandemic. The protests only stopped on 25 July when Saied decided to use the exceptional powers given to the president in Article 80 of the constitution, allowing him to dissolve both the government and the parliament, which was dominated by the Islamist Ennahda party.

Saied then moved quickly to centralise power. He issued a video message reassuring Tunisians that he was no dictator and that these were arbitrary procedures necessary to control public outrage and end economic suffering. “There is no withdrawal from respecting rights and freedoms, and there is no room for infringement or assault on them,” he promised, adding that he stood with the people to “preserve the unity of the state and protect it from the corruption that is decaying its joints”.

Saied concluded the video by saying: “Insha’Allah, we will win! It is a war, but without bullets or blood. It is a war based on the law. A war for justice and freedom. We will keep our oath and our responsibility, all the way.” Surprisingly, the angry masses applauded Saied’s power grab and chose to believe him. In part, this was because the country’s ‘three presidencies’ system of governance had become unpopular and was being blamed for the state’s failure to meet its people’s needs.

With many still fearful of a so-called ‘deep state,’ the post-revolution constitution in Tunisia had tailored a system of governance that was neither presidential nor parliamentary but balanced between three decision-making authorities, or ‘presidencies’, namely: the President, the Prime Minister, and the Speaker. Yet while the system kept political elites happy, it led to a state of governing paralysis. Competing agendas and visions led to inconsistencies and contradiction. With the economy wobbling, calls for reform soon became nationwide protests.

Saied responded, popularly promising an end to a broken system, but soon began using that momentum to increase his grip on power, first by removing state officials from the government, parliament, judiciary, even the security forces, replacing them with loyalists, then by rewriting – and ultimately, passing – a new constitution that handed power to a largely unaccountable president, namely, him.

The New Constitution

Last week, one year on from Saied’s power grab, a minority of Tunisians approved the new constitution through a poorly attended referendum. Just 2.75 million of the country’s 9.3 million registered voters (30.5 percent) turned up. According to the official Electoral Commission, 94.6 percent of these voted in favour of the new constitution.

Saied’s political supporters and all those concerned about Ennahda’s return have celebrated the result. However, his political opponents, not to mention several civil society groups, have referred to some acts of fraud, challenging the legitimacy of the constitution and of President Saied himself.

The Administrative Court is already looking at appeals submitted by those protesting the results, yet there are other worries for Saied. The authenticity and transparency of the referendum is now being called into question. Analysts point to the questionable independence of the board of the Elections Commission, whose members have recently been selected by none other than President Saied.

Others point to the exceptionally low voter turnout in the referendum, asking how the state could justify changing its constitution when seven out of every ten eligible voters stayed at home. Again, commentators have said this is an abnormally low figure, given the well-known dedication to democracy of the Tunisian people.

Concerns abound elsewhere, too, not least in the timing and context of the constitution’s rewrite. Major revisions penned by a powerful president’s cronies during times of transition and political turmoil risk, by their very nature, a lack of permanence. On the contrary, constitutional tinkering during times of political stability, with the active participation of all political blocs and civil society representatives, stands a much better chance of permanence.

Another cause of furrowed brows is Saied’s new constitutional ability to hire or fire any state officials of any rank or position, up to and including the Prime Minister and the Speaker of parliament. In addition, the new constitution makes him the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, making him immune from military coup. Furthermore, Article 100 of Saied’s new constitution gives him the exclusive right to “set the public policy of the state and define its essential choices”. As if that weren’t enough, his pet projects will get “priority consideration by parliament”. There is a catch, though.

If the Administrative Court annuls or rejects the appeals against the referendum results, the new constitution comes into effect on 27 August, after being ratified by its presidential author. As soon as it takes effect, Saied could find himself in legal trouble, because he was elected president based on the old constitution, not the new one, and the change of constitution necessitates the re-election of all electable governing bodies and officials, including the president. Under such a scenario, the legitimacy of Kais Saied would end when the new constitution kicks in, but this shrewd former professor of law will almost certainly tailor another decree to protect himself.

The Future

The political scene in Tunisia is muddled. Saied has largely ruled on his own for a year through public statements and presidential decrees. Mired in a dire and worsening economic situation, the Tunisian people are slowly burying their dream of living in a democratic state. According to the Tunisian government, unemployment is running at more than 17 percent and the economy recently contracted by a record 8.2 percent. According to the World Bank, poverty rates in Tunisia reached 15.2 percent in 2020, with three out of every ten families fearful of running out of food.

In recent days, reports have circulated claiming that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is considering lending two billion euros to the current Tunisian government. If true, it is unlikely to solve the economic crisis, but it would further enhance Saied’s grip on power. As Saied contemplates his next move, the country’s political Islamists plot their way back to power, as the world watches the Arab Spring’s great democratic hope fall further from grace. Where is Tunisia heading? Nobody knows. But many suspect it is not towards the sunlit uplands Tunisians once hoped to see.

Article first published on Al-Majalla.

The American bet on the Brotherhood returned again with the entry of the new millennium…

All evidence confirms that terrorism and the Brotherhood organization are two sides of the same coin. The Brotherhood has pursued a method of murder rooted in the hands of their leader Hassan Al-Banna nearly 90 years ago that still governs the organization’s ideas until now.

History confirms that for decades the Brotherhood did not abandon the idea of ​​bloodshed, so all terrorist organizations emerged from the womb of the Brotherhood and gathered them together as a single jurisprudential cloak and employed texts in favor of the Brotherhood murder project, so Egypt and our Arab region suffered from a series of assassinations and terrorist operations that claimed lives throughout history.

With the year 2011, the Brotherhood began writing a new chapter in the history of the killing, even after they seized power in Egypt and many crimes committed by the terrorist organization after the June 30 revolution.

A black history of the Brotherhood over more than 90 years, from their inception in 1928 with the support and funding of the British, to their strategic alliance with the United States of America in recent decades to achieve common interests.

In 1936, the British offered a grant to the founder of the Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, with the aim of supporting and expanding the group’s activities to strike the ranks of the national movement at this time.

In March 1954, Eisenhower met the thirty-fourth President of the United States, the top leaders of Islamic movements around the world, and this is what the American writer Robert Dreyfus explains in his famous book “The Devil’s Game”.

Among those whom Grandfather Eisenhower met was a young Egyptian in his twenties, “Said Ramadan”, who is the son-in-law of Hassan Al-Banna and the husband of his youngest daughter, and the father of Tariq Al-Banna, a Muslim Brotherhood preacher who was arrested months ago in France and charged with sexual rape. More than 27 years at that time, but the American administration found its way in this young man who had at least 10 years of experience in Islamic groups and their armed organizations in the Middle East, and this experience extended from Cairo to Karachi and Amman.

The United States saw that the Brotherhood at that time could be an advanced tool and spearhead in Arab countries and some of the Asian countries in which Islam is spreading to confront communism, and despite that, communism spread and the group failed America and its plan against communism at its time.

Despite this, the American-Brotherhood relations continued and Ramadan moved after that to Switzerland, and the beginnings of the establishment of the international organization of the Brotherhood, and the Brotherhood at that time expanded and became the organizational sponsor for successive generations of extremist groups that emerged from the womb of the terrorist group and expanded in many Arab and Western countries, and over the four decades that after the meeting of Ramadan and Eisenhower, the first turned into an activist figure in various fields, all of which unfortunately were devoted to presenting Islam as an extremist, heavenly version, but it originated among its followers of these ideas, and from here extremist Muslims appeared in Pakistan, and provided a safe haven for Al Qaeda in the 1990s.

The American bet on the Brotherhood returned again with the entry of the new millennium, specifically with the rise of US President Barack Obama, and the group was able to reach power in Egypt in 2012 after January 25, 2011, which the Brotherhood used to implement their plans.

Despite all support, according to Michael Walker, a researcher at the London Center for Research and Studies, there is a secret presidential document bearing No. 11 issued by the former US president, Barack Obama, that explained the strategic relationship of the United States and its alliance with the Brotherhood, to bring about change in the Middle East and everywhere in the world.

The recent leaked Hillary Clinton documents revealed the Brotherhood’s recruitment to achieve US interests in Egypt and the region, and the exchange of private messages between the organization and the Obama administration.

For his part, Dr. Ikram Badr al-Din, a professor of political science, said that the Brotherhood sold their country to achieve the benefit they found with the Americans, noting that the Obama administration had earlier taken the Brotherhood as a strategic ally in the region, and betting on the group’s rule in Egypt to be the tool of the United States in the entire Arab region, and to achieve the scheme of division and influence the nation state.

Details of the establishment of “Hasm” and why did Washington not list the Brotherhood as a terrorist group?

A meeting of the Egyptian Brotherhood leaders in Istanbul, in which they decided to establish the movement and train its members through Turkish intelligence in Sudan and Malaysia decisively puts Turkey and the Brotherhood against America. The Brotherhood denied its relationship with its terrorist cell and the American administration stated that its leaders are the Brotherhood and Turkish institutions are threatened with freezing their funds because of their relationship with Samahi, Moussa and the blood leaders.

The US State Department has included “Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis” group, the ISIS branch in Sinai, Egypt, and the “Egyptian arms movement” known as “Hasm” on the list of global terrorism.

The classification also included personalities associated with the “Hasm” organization, namely, Alaa Al-Samahi, the founder of the movement, who is Egyptian and currently in Turkey, and another leader in the movement called Yahya Moussa, who also resides in Turkey.

Here, an important question arises, which is if the movement affiliated with the group was included in the terrorist lists, then why was it not, by extension, that the planner and the financier, the “Brotherhood” group, was included and classified as a terrorist group?

The details of the establishment of the movement start from the year 2014, when the Brotherhood leaders who fled to Turkey agreed to revive the armed action of the group inside Egypt, through the formation of a new armed organization that takes several names such as “Egypt’s Arms” and “The Revolution Brigade”, and selecting its members who have the foundations. Physical and psychological elements of the revolutionary movement, and their inclusion of armed combat groups and their training inside and outside Egypt, and assigning them later to target institutions and symbols of the state to weaken the system and cause safe chaos.

The Egyptian security services revealed information that the leaders of the group residing in Turkey, namely Yahya al-Sayed Ibrahim Muhammad Musa, a teacher at the Faculty of Medicine at Al-Azhar University, Mahmoud Muhammad Fathi Badr, an engineer, Ahmed Muhammad Abdul-Rahman, a doctor, Ali al-Sayyid Ahmad Batikh, a doctor, and Jamal Heshmat Abdel Hamid, a doctor, Qadri Muhammad Fahmy Mahmoud al-Sheikh, a pharmacist, and Salah al-Din Khaled Salah al-Din Fateen, a communications engineer. The aforementioned met in Istanbul, and decided to form an operations room abroad to coordinate with leaders of the group fleeing inside Egypt, including Muhammad Muhammad Kamal al-Din, a doctor from Assiut governorate and responsible for the quality committees within the group. Muhammad Rafiq Ibrahim Manna, a journalist from Alexandria governorate, and Magdy Musleh Shalash, a teacher Faculty of Studies at Al-Azhar University, Hamdi Taha Abdel-Rahim, a former member of the People’s Assembly during the Muslim Brotherhood era, and Mohamed Fouad.

All agreed to implement the mandate of the group’s senior leaders to form an armed military wing under the name “Hasm”. The information indicated that the leaders of the group agreed that Turkish intelligence agents would combat training in training camps in the State of Sudan during the regime of ousted President Omar al-Bashir, in camps in the Burri and Azhari neighborhoods in the capital Khartoum, and other camps in the city of Atbara. Its responsibility is assumed by the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Tariq Syed Ahmed Abd al-Wahhab Farraj, while it was found that the members of the movement had been trained on intelligence work in Malaysia and Turkey.

It was agreed that Yahya al-Sayyid Ibrahim Musa, Ahmed Muhammad Abd al-Rahman Abd al-Hadi, and Alaa Ali Ali al-Samahi would assume the actual and field leadership of the movement.

The information confirmed that Brotherhood officials had chosen the group’s members who were physically and psychologically prepared, and equipped them to carry out terrorist operations and assassinations.

The movement began to carry out several operations in Egypt, including the assassination of Counselor Hisham Barakat, the former Public Prosecutor, the attempt to assassinate Dr. Ali Gomaa, the former Mufti of Egypt, the failed assassination attempt of Counselor Zakaria Abdulaziz Othman, the Assistant Public Prosecutor and Director of the Judicial Inspection Department at the Public Prosecution, and the attack on the police ambush Agizi in Menoufia.

Political researcher Ahmed Al-Bakri says that classifying the Hasm movement as a terrorist organization at a time when everyone knows that it is one of the military arms of the Muslim Brotherhood requires by extension the inclusion of the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, adding that since 2017 there have been discussions in America to include “Hasm” a terrorist organization, and the decision was issued.

After 4 years, which implies that the group should be on the list of terrorism and its inclusion and classification as a terrorist organization in the near future, especially since all information confirms the affiliation of the movement to the Brotherhood.

He added that the US administration included the branches on the list of terrorism, and the original Brotherhood group is still far from being classified, stressing that the Egyptian security services have succeeded in dismantling “Hasm” and aborted all their plans, and the movement has become non-existent or active on the ground since 2019, but the parent organization is still The Brotherhood is present, and it is possible to reproduce its armed and military arms with new names instead of those listed on the lists of terrorism.

He said that the ideal decision that everyone awaits is the inclusion of the Brotherhood as a terrorist group, for they are the root of the affliction, and the birthplace of all groups of violence and darkness, and from which all armed movements branched out.

He concluded by saying that the decision to include “Hasm” a terrorist organization is worthless, because there is virtually no presence on the ground in Egypt or in the world there is a movement called Hasm, while there is a terrorist group in the whole world and in Egypt that carries arms and produces violence that takes lives called “Brotherhood”.

Waleed Al-Ghamdi is Saudi-based independent researcher and political analyst. He tweets under @nofr2021.

The emails provided new evidence on the huge conspiracy led by Qatar, in coordination with political Islam powers, against other countries in the region…

The emails of former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are declassified about two months before the 10th anniversary of the so-called Arab Spring that started in Tunisia. This timing indicates that nothing is left to chance in our region and that the conspiracy theory is not always an illusion as conspirators want their victims to believe. Rather, it is mostly a correct theory stemming from the everlasting fight over power and influence.

Hillary’s emails revealed the central role of the US in the chaos that erupted in Tunisia before spreading to other countries; Washington’s goal to enable political Islam to rule the countries whose regimes were overthrown; the US control over the Muslim Brotherhood; and Qatar’s vicious role in supporting this project with funds, armed terrorist militias and groups, and media platforms that are still carrying out sabotage plans to this day.

Qatar took on the role of an executive producer for a show about creative chaos. It attracted hordes of extras to shoot the scenes of bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power. Meanwhile, the US was playing the role of the screenwriter and director from across the ocean. Political Islam was given the lead role in spite of its limited capabilities. Finally, and despite all the losses, this project was crowned with failure.

The efforts of the Qatari and Brotherhood propaganda platforms to question the accuracy of the contents of Hillary’s emails are useless. Everyone already knew about what was happening.

The emails of the former US secretary of state indicated that Egypt’s sovereignty and national unity, as well as its institutions and society, were all targeted, and that huge sums of money were paid to political activists and actors who shared the same pursuit; that the Muslim Brotherhood’s rule was neither patriotic nor democratic, but rather under the control of one individual, its supreme guide; that there was an agreement with the Brotherhood-backed President, Mohamed Morsi, to dismantle the Ministry of Interior, which is the symbol of the centralization of the state and its security and administrative status; and that Qatar and its foreign minister at the time, Hamad bin Jassim, had a hand in inciting chaos in Egypt.

The exposed emails also touched on Washington’s role in supporting terrorist groups in Libya in 2011, accusing the head of the Transitional Council at the time, Qatar-backed Mustafa Abdul Jalil, of being involved in the assassination order of Major General Abdel Fattah Yunus, who was the leader of the opposition, based on his alleged connection with Saif al-Islam Gaddafi. Hillary’s messages also confirmed the strong relationship between Washington and the terrorist Abdel Hakim Belhaj. The assassinated US ambassador in Benghazi, Christopher Stevens, used to call Belhaj “our son.” The declassified emails even exposed US-based Libyan businessman Omar al-Turabi, who appeared on Al Jazeera channel frequently, for providing NATO with coordinates to bomb sites in his country of origin, including the site where Saif al-Arab Gaddafi was killed on April 30, 2011.

The Clinton emails also revealed the US-Qatar-Brotherhood disruptive role in Yemen; the support provided to anarchists and people seeking to overthrow the state; the relationship of the US secretary, through her administration, with the Muslim Brotherhood; her team’s acclamation for Tawakkol Karman’s Nobel Prize; and her recommendation for Karman to become the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Yemen.

The emails provided new evidence on the huge conspiracy led by Qatar, in coordination with political Islam powers, against other countries in the region; Qatar’s destructive role that led to killing tens of thousands of people, displacing millions of Arabs, and wasting about a trillion dollars in the name of Arab Spring revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Syria; and Washington’s endeavor during Obama’s term to target all Arab regimes and nations without exception, including Bahrain, one of the most prominent allies of the US, by supporting the Iran-backed sectarian chaos. On the other hand, however, Clinton’s exchanges showed Saudi Arabia in a good light, as the Kingdom’s leaders at the time refused to compromise their principles and national security.

According to one of the documents, following the decision to send the Peninsula Shield forces to Bahrain to face the riots that took place in the country in 2011, Clinton called the Kingdom’s ambassador to Washington at the time, Adel al-Jubeir, and asked him, “Why are you going to Bahrain?”, to which he replied, “to provide moral support.” When Clinton threatened that this would impact Washington-Riyadh relations, he said, “Our forces on the bridge will enter today.” When Clinton called the then Saudi foreign minister, late Prince Saud al-Faisal, to discuss the matter with him, he hung up the phone on her.

Saudis understood the plan targeting the region and the huge conspiracy being hatched and implemented with the participation of the American ally. In one of her emails, Clinton said, “Saudis no longer trust us to take their interests into account or to protect them from their enemies. In December 2002, (…) the U.S. prepared to invade Iraq against the forcefully expressed advice of then Crown Prince Abdullah.”

Qatar took on the role of an executive producer for a show about creative chaos. It attracted hordes of extras to shoot the scenes of bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power.

Charles W. Freeman, who was the US ambassador to Riyadh during the Gulf War, was more insightful about Saudi Arabia. In a letter to Clinton about the Kingdom and its people, he said, “(…) Saudi Arabia (…) is the only society on the planet not to have been penetrated by Western colonialism. No European armies breached its borders (…). When Westerners finally came to Saudi Arabia, we came not as the vindicators of our presumed cultural superiority, but as hired help.”

“Unlike some other countries in the Arab Gulf, Saudi Arabia has invested its oil wealth at home, not abroad, though it has long been generous with foreign aid. (At one point it was donating six percent of GDP to other, mostly Muslim, nations.)”, he added.

The efforts of the Qatari and Brotherhood propaganda platforms to question the accuracy of the contents of Hillary’s emails are useless. Everyone already knew about what was happening, with the exception of a few minor details. Besides, the relationship between Clinton’s administration, the Doha regime, the Muslim Brotherhood, and terrorism is already publicly known with ample evidence, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

The deep state in the US cannot, of course, disclose all documents and reveal all its practices, despite domestic conflicts between its two prominent parties fighting over power. Otherwise, the US would expose its disregard for ethics in its relations with others, especially its allies, as clearly happened in the so-called Arab Spring revolutions.

This article was first published on Al-Arab, and translated by Al Arabiya.

The US State Department released documents related to US foreign policy, including many related to the Middle East and North Africa.

Hillary Clinton’s e-mails for the era of Democrats headed by Barack Obama, reveal the confusion, the loss of an effective strategy, and the disastrous dimension caused by the Democrats’ policies through the project of (Creative Chaos) that caused destruction of large areas in the Middle East and North Africa.

Here, we publish some of the messages that were leaked regarding that dangerous period that witnessed the overthrow and destruction of some countries, as well as the emergence of terrorist organizations, which received wide political and economic support from the democratic administration, such as ISIS and the militias affiliated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, in addition to the expansion  Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah.

The Successful Saudi Model

The most striking was that includes the full realization that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is stable, prosperous and fully developed without adopting western liberal approach such as democracy, and it seems certainly that this is what infuriates the elite of the ideology of the liberal left trend.

Addressed to Clinton from the former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Charles Freeman (1989-1992), a letter to Hillary in 2001, explains the difficulty of obtaining satisfactory results in Saudi Arabia by adopting the tactics of change and influence used in the so-called Arab Spring (Creative Chaos).

Clear Understanding

Ambassador expresses: … the only society in this world that has not been penetrated by Western colonialism. No European armies have penetrated its borders, neither missionaries nor merchants.  Its capital, Riyadh, was out of reach of the infidels. The holy cities of Makkah and Medinah remain so today.

The Saudis have been Prepared

When the Westerners finally came to Saudi Arabia, they did not come as defenders of supposed Western cultural supremacy, but as a hired aid. 

He explains that the Kingdom has stood far from global standards (Western liberal approach), as its system of government is based on tribal and Islamic traditions rather than Western models.  

Adding: The king heads the royal family and Saudi society, but  he does not rule them (The Saudi King rules through mutual understanding with the Saudis). The king’s responsibility is not so much to make decisions as it is to form and declare consensus, while ensuring a share of the national wealth for all, especially the less fortunate.  

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not impose taxes on its citizens, except for the religious tithes known as “zakat” – an annual donation of private capital of two and a half percent for charitable and other public purposes.

The Saudi Approach is Competitive

As as we can understand, Freeman to Clinton in this document, highlights his awareness of the high viability of the Saudi monarchy, which is based on Islamic laws, where all Saudis enjoy free education, free medical care from birth to death, and they can also pursue these services at home or abroad as they like.

The former American ambassador explains the merit of the advanced alternative represented by the nature of the Saudi system in competing with the ruling systems of different ideologies globally, especially democracy, saying:The Kingdom does not have a parliament, although it has informal mechanisms to consult with its citizens on political issues.  He affirmed that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has definitely upended a basic principle of American political philosophy.  “No representation without taxes.”

The Entrenchment of Saudi Society

He continues: Despite the rapid development, the strong family structure that characterized the traditional Saudi society has remained largely the same.  It’s really moving to see how children and grandchildren care for the elderly in the Kingdom.  This is reflected in the fact that almost none of its citizens have emigrated, although many of them have second homes abroad, and some, such as Osama bin Laden, have been exiled, due to deviant behavior.  For a long time, it was easier for journalists and academics to obtain a Tibetan visa than Saudi Arabia.

Development and Donation

Charles Freeman establishes the effective value of the Saudi monarchy, saying: Unlike some countries … Saudi Arabia has invested its oil wealth at home, not abroad, even though it has long been generous in foreign aid.  (At one point it was donating 6% of the GDP to others, mostly Muslim countries)

He adds that extreme poverty in the pre-oil period is now, at most, a grim memory.  Over the life of elderly Saudis, per capita income in the kingdom has increased by nearly 100%, and mud-walled villages of sparsely populated population have grown into mega-cities adapted to the architecture of the 21 century.

Effective Education System

Freeman draws attention to a fundamental point of this paradox: Saudis today are not only educated, but many of them have university degrees.  There are more US PhD.’s in the Saudi Cabinet than there are in the Cabinet and Congress combined in the United States.

Article first published on The Herald Report.

Turkey Al-Owerde is Editor-in-Chief and Political Analyst of the Herald Report. His knowledge of the religious undertones of most Muslim Terrorist Organizations makes his many “conflict analysis” a valuable source of information for many security experts from around the world. He tweets under @Turki_AlOwerde.