Bible Quotation for today/A
Life That Pleases God
01 Thessalonians
04/01-12: "1 Finally, our friends, you learned from us how you should live
in order to please God. This is, of course, the way you have been living.
And now we beg and urge you in the name of the Lord Jesus to do even more.
For you know the instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord
Jesus. God wants you to be holy and completely free from sexual immorality.
Each of you should know how to live with your wife in a holy and honorable
way, not with a lustful desire, like the heathen who do not know God. In
this matter, then, none of you should do wrong to other Christians or take
advantage of them. We have told you this before, and we strongly warned you
that the Lord will punish those who do that. God did not call us to live in
immorality, but in holiness. So then, whoever rejects this teaching is not
rejecting a human being, but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.
There is no need to write you about love for each other. You yourselves have
been taught by God how you should love one another. And you have, in fact,
behaved like this toward all the believers in all of Macedonia. So we beg
you, our friends, to do even more. Make it your aim to live a quiet life, to
mind your own business, and to earn your own living, just as we told you
before. In this way you will win the respect of those who are not believers,
and you will not have to depend on anyone for what you need.
Latest analysis, editorials,
studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Another Saudi Actuarial Disaster/By:
Simon Henderson/Washingtom Institute/June 19/12
Hassan
Nasrallah and Michel Aoun are downright dangerous/Now Lebanon/June 19/12
Latest News Reports From
Miscellaneous Sources for June 19/12
Iran threatens to break off nuclear talks if West does not lift oil
sanctions
Latest updates: Iran nuclear talks underway in Moscow
Report: Iran, Russia, China to hold mass military drill in Syria
Tehran and Cairo – not exactly Islamic brothers
Muslim Brotherhood leader claims victory in Egypt elections
US & RUSSIA BOTH DEPLOY IN SYRIA – DOUBLE PREY FOR AL-QAEDA
Syrian forces
pound cities as Obama, Putin meet
Lebanese Islamists detained since 2007 released
Two more candidates for north Lebanon by-election
Boko Haram claims church attacks as Nigeria toll hits 52
Russia, China, Iran plan to stage in Syria biggest Mid East maneuver
Obama, Putin agree on need to prevent Syrian ‘civil war’
Putin finds common ground with Obama on Syria
West avoiding action in Syria, blaming Russia
Greece pressured to form coalition after election
U.S. to provide intel to Syrian rebels
Claims of FSA
planning to attack Tartus are irresponsible
Prince Salman named Saudi crown pince amid challenges
Three Palestinians killed in clashes with Army
Siniora believed to be target of
assassination bid
Lebanon's Doctors strike over physician’s detention
Hezbollah MP warns against civil war in
Lebanon
Dialogue
will help improve security, economy: Charbel
Sudanese maintain hunger strike in Beirut
Lebanese Religious summit discusses peace, justice
Lebanese
Protesters block several roads over power shortages
LBC: Eight Lebanese politicians at risk of assassination
Kataeb Party announces support for LF candidate in Koura by-election
Jumblatt slams “failure” of international community over Syrian crisis
Harb proposes amendments to expat voting law
Marouni: March 14 must leave dialogue if it does not address weapons
Fears Over Suspension of Dialogue on Hizbullah Arsenal-Proliferation of Arms
Controversy
US & RUSSIA BOTH DEPLOY IN SYRIA – DOUBLE PREY FOR
AL-QAEDA
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report June 19, 2012/
The failure of US President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir
Putin Monday, at the G20 summit in Los Cabos, Mexico to agree on terms for
Syria and Iran holds the potential for three equally dire scenarios to
unfold in Syria:
It could degenerate into another Afghanistan; or another Balkans, or al
Qaeda’s next war arena.
Potentially counterpoised in Syria today are, on the one side, the United
States, Europe and their Arab allies; on the other, are Russia, China, Iran
and Hizballah. The last group is preparing to show its muscle with a vast
joint military exercise in Syria.
Al Qaeda has begun to seep through the cracks. The Assad regime is not just
shedding blood but bleeding itself But it stays alive because 40 percent of
the Syrian population is behind it and the rebel movement is deeply
fractured.
Syria is therefore in the process of breaking up into three balkanized
segments:
The United States and its European and Arab allies in the northern, central
and eastern regions.
The Russians, along the Mediterranean coastal strip. Russian warships are on
their way to secure their base at Tartus.
In these circumstances, Iran and HIzballah will intensify their effort to
prop up the Assad regime and solidify their grip in Damascus.
So three world forces may end up dividing Syria up between them. Al Qaeda
will have achieved its object of corralling America and Russia on one
unruly territory and easily within reach of attack.
Two more candidates for north Lebanon by-election
June 19, 2012/ The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Jean Jabr Mufarrij and Naim Musa al-Ujaimi registered Tuesday their
respective candidacies for the by-election to fill the vacant parliamentary
seat in the northern district of Koura, the Interior Ministry announced.
The by-election, set for July 15, will be held to fill the Orthodox
post which became vacant with the death of LF MP Farid Habib on May 31.Last
week, the Lebanese Forces nominated Fadi Karam as the party's candidate in
the election.Those intending to run in the election have until June 29 to
register their candidacy.
LBC: Eight Lebanese politicians at risk of
assassination
June 18, 2012/LBC television station reported on Monday that eight different
political personalities in Lebanon were at risk of assassination. The report
said that “Lebanese security sources” informed the television station that
“foreign security services managed to infiltrate [the factions] that are
preparing the assassinations and communicate the information to their
Lebanese counterparts.”The list that reported by LBC included Future
Movement leader MP Saad Hariri, Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, Future
bloc leader MP Fouad Siniora, Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid
Jumblatt, Kataeb Party MP Sami Gemayel, Future bloc MP Khaled al-Daher,
Internal Security Forces (ISF) head General Ashraf Rifi and ISF Information
Branch head Colonel Wissam al-Hassan. Sources close to Siniora said in
remarks published on Sunday that the MP received information from various
sources that an assassination attempt was being prepared against him. -NOW
Lebanon
Hassan Nasrallah and Michel Aoun are downright dangerous.
June 18, 2012/Now Lebanon
Other politicians may be mediocre, but Hassan Nasrallah and Michel Aoun are
downright dangerous.
The default setting for Lebanese politics has always been mediocrity, but
today, our so-called political class has succeeded in dropping the bar to an
all-time low. March 14 is in disarray; a shadow of the movement that between
2005 and 2009 did a good job of convincing us that genuine change was
possible. Its lack of vision and steel is today set against the delusional
rhetoric of Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah and the patronizing
rants of Michel Aoun, his unlikely Christian ally. On June 1, Nasrallah
called for a strong state, one built along non-sectarian lines. It is an
easy call to make, especially when Nasrallah knows deep down he can call on
the biggest chunk of the Shia block vote, but what is even more bizarre is
his call for a “state” in the first place. This is the man whose party tries
to avoid a strong state—or at least the strong state most of us want—at all
costs. This kind of strong state would mean an end to Hezbollah’s reckless
and deadly adventurism and the demobilization of a militia that has refined
the art of keeping the country on the brink of war.
Nasrallah has demonstrated time and time again that he has no idea what it
means to have a strong state. His speeches are balloon juice for the masses;
full of easy words to throw out while his supporters nod and agree but which
in reality mean nothing and cost even less to say. Proof of his sincerity in
seeking a strong state was served up last Thursday, when in an interview
with Iranian television, he boasted that Hezbollah’s missiles are now
“capable of reaching vital targets inside Israel.” So here we have the
leader of a political party boasting that he has weapons that can take out
targets in a neighboring country, albeit one with which we are conveniently
still at war. Nasrallah has never asked the state’s permission to use his
weapons, and we have no reason to think he will do so in the future, so
where is his respect for the state? Nasrallah should know that we really
don’t care about his arsenal and his loyal soldiers. He should know that our
lives and aspirations—both personally and nationally—will never be bound by
Hezbollah’s culture of death, conflict and sacrifice.
Posturing about how much destruction he can dispense is all he has to offer,
and a strong state is much more than this.
Lebanon’s destiny is not in his hands. And thank goodness it isn’t because
we have seen what happens when he makes important decisions with zero
legitimacy. Blood is spilt. With elections due, who wants to vote for a
party whose key policies are centered on death and which, despite
Nasrallah’s protestations, is the antithesis of the notion of the state.
In the same speech, Nasrallah once again warned us that “Israel, the US and
some other Western countries along with certain Arab nations are seeking to
topple [Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad’s regime with the help of
Al-Qaeda.” This, he implied, was proof that the West does not want reforms
in Syria.
On Saturday, Michel Aoun picked up the slack and warned that Lebanon could
witness a civil war if the Syrian regime fell. But—and here is the script
given to him by Hezbollah to allay his supporters—if the Syrian president
“wins the war and the regime stays, then Assad himself should make changes
to give larger freedoms.”
It was classic Aoun, a man whose dreams of the presidency—for so long part
of a Faustian pact that hitched his fortunes to those of Hezbollah—have been
dashed, leaving him to trot out a Hezbollah line fashioned for his fearful
fans. It was a message in which they will seek solace, a security blanket
that offers an explanation. And yet a look at the events of the last year
will show it can never be like this. Assad has never offered anything
serious and never will.
March 14 may have lost its way, Saad Hariri may no longer have the stomach
for the fight, Samir Geagea may be wondering just how far he can take the
Lebanese Forces into a Sunni alliance, while Prime Minister Najib Mikati and
President Michel Sleiman may have their hands tied by the constraints of
office. And yes, the security situation is deteriorating, and yes we should
be concerned. What we don’t need is Nasrallah boasting of wiping Israel off
the map and Aoun telling us to give the Assad regime a chance when it had
had countless chances and violates our territorial integrity on a daily
basis.
The others may be mediocre… Nasrallah and Aoun are downright dangerous.
Three Palestinians killed
in clashes with Army
June 19, 2012/By Mohammed Zaatari The Daily Star
TRIPOLI, Lebanon: At least two Palestinians were killed Monday in
clashes between the Lebanese Army and residents in the refugee camp of Nahr
al-Bared in north Lebanon, security sources said.
The incident quickly set off clashes in the south’s Ain al-Hilweh
camp where a Palestinian man was killed after falling on a sharp object.
Four others and a Lebanese soldier were wounded in the clashes.
Monday’s deadly clashes came after last week’s fatal shooting of
15-year-old Ahmad Qassem by soldiers near Nahr al-Bared following a violent
standoff between the Lebanese Army and locals.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas telephoned President Michel
Sleiman urging him to deal with the situation in Nahr al-Bared and offering
to help in efforts aimed at restoring calm, the state-run National News
Agency reported.
The two Palestinians in Nahr al-Bared were killed by the Army after
infiltrators attacked military posts, security sources said, adding that
three soldiers and 10 Palestinians were also wounded. The sources identified
the two victims as Amin Ghoneim and Fouad Muhieddine Loubaneh.
They said the infiltrators, who were among a crowd attending Qassem’s
funeral in the camp, attacked Army posts in the camp, including one called
the Samed post.
The Lebanese Army also blamed what it called “infiltrators” for the
clash.
In a statement, the Army said infiltrators in the camp began hurling
stones and Molotov cocktails at the Samed post which caused injury to three
soldiers, burned a military vehicle and damaged part of the post.
Some infiltrators attempted to storm the post by force, prompting
soldiers to confront them by using anti-riot weapons, tear gas and rubber
bullets, the statement said.
However, after the infiltrators persisted in their attempts to gain
access to the post, soldiers resorted to live rounds which resulted in a
number of casualties among the assailants, it added.
The Army’s statement said the clash had come as attempts were made
between the Army and Palestinian sides to deal with the consequences and
causes of last week’s incident that led to Qassem’s killing. It added that
attempts had also been under way at Army commander Gen. Jean Kahwagi’s
instructions to loosen military measures in the camp.
Palestinians sources told The Daily Star that the infiltrators
intended to drive a wedge between the Lebanese Army and the residents of the
camp which was devastated by three months of fierce fighting between the
Lebanese Army and Al-Qaeda-linked Fatah al-Islam gunmen in 2007.“We will not
allow this to happen as we fully support the Army,” one source said.
News of the killing of the two Palestinians caused tension in other
refugee camps across the country. – The Daily Star with additional reporting
by Mohammed Zaatari
Lebanese army kills 2
Palestinians
Reuters Published: 06.19.12/Ynetnews
Medical sources say 20 people injured in clashes at refugee camp;
Palestinians riot after funeral of man killed by troops Friday
The Lebanese army shot dead two Palestinians in a refugee camp near
the northern city of Tripoli on Monday after confrontations broke out during
the funeral of man killed in the camp on Friday, residents said. The army
said in a statement the soldiers used tear gas and rubber bullets before
opening fire on a crowd that attacked an army post inside the Nahr al-Bared
camp. It said three soldiers had been wounded by stones and petrol bombs
thrown at them. Medical sources said 20 other people had been injured in the
clashes.Youth hurl stones, petrol bomb The violence erupted at the funeral
of a man killed on Friday when troops tried to stop a fight between two
Palestinians at the camp, scene of battles between the army and Islamist
fighters five years ago in which more than 400 people were killed and 6,000
homes were flattened. Hundreds of people rallied on Monday in the nearby
Beddawi refugee camp on the outskirts of Tripoli to protest against the
killings, while residents of the Ain el-Hilweh camp outside the southern
port of Sidon also held violent demonstrations.Youths hurled stones and at
least one petrol bomb at an army base on the edge of Ain el-Hilweh, a
witness said.
Russia, China, Iran plan to stage in Syria “biggest Mid East maneuver”
DEBKAfile Special Report June 18, 2012/Middle East
military tensions around Syria shot up again Monday, June 18, with the news
reported by the semi-official Iranian news agency Fars that a joint
Russian-Chinese-Iranian exercise is to take place in Syria.
It was described as “the biggest of its kind ever staged in the Middle East”
with 90,000 personnel, 400 air planes and 900 tanks taking part.
As part of its preparations, Beijing is reported to have asked Egyptian
authorities to permit the passage through the Suez Canal in late June of 12
naval ships heading for the Syrian port of Tartus, where Moscow maintains a
naval and marine base. debkafile reported earlier this week that Russian
naval vessels with marines on board were heading for Tartus. The Iranian
media did not itemize their contribution to the joint exercise. debkafile
stresses that this would be the first time that substantial Russian and
Chinese military strength has ever been deployed in Syria or anywhere else
in the Middle East. It means that the two powers are prepared to parade
their unabashed partnership with the Iranian and Syrian armies for the
shared purpose of obstructing US-European-Arab military intervention in
Syria. A large-scale Russian and Chinese military presence in the embattled
country would expect to deter the United States from leading a military
operation against Bashar Assad and his regime.
No date was attached to the report but the exercise may possibly take place
before the end of the month
The large-scale maneuver was announced in Tehran on the first day of the
nuclear crisis talks in Moscow between Iran and the six world powers, their
third attempt to resolve the crisis by diplomacy. However, Russian and
Iranian sources close to the talks were pessimistic about progress. An
Iranian delegation member complained the atmosphere was harsh and
unconstructive. A Russian source saw no way of bridging US-led Western
differences with Tehran when the parties reconvene Monday.
debkafile also notes that the big joint Russian-Chinese-Iranian exercise “at
sea, air and land on Syrian soil,” ws released for publication shortly
before US President Barack Obama was due to meet Russian President Vladimir
Putin at the G-20 summit in Mexico.
Obama, Putin agree on need to prevent Syrian ‘civil war’
White House Correspondent/Posts..By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News
President Barack Obama said Monday that he and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir
Putin, agree on the need for a political transition in Syria to prevent the
conflict there from escalating into an all-out "civil war."After huddling for
two hours on the sidelines of a Group of 20 summit in Los Cabos, Mexico, the two
leaders seemed eager to paper over rifts on a range of issues—including Syrian
leader Bashar Assad's bloody 15-month crackdown on opposition to his rule."We
discussed Syria, where we agreed that we need to see a cessation of the
violence, that a political process has to be created to prevent civil war, and
the kind of horrific events that we've seen over the last several weeks," Obama
said after the talks.
"We pledged to work with other international actors, including the United
Nations, Kofi Annan and all the interested parties in trying to find a
resolution to this problem," Obama told reporters.
The media pool report, crafted by Carol Lee of the Wall Street Journal, notes
that "Mr. Putin sat expressionless during this part of Mr. Obama's statement. He
bit his lip and stared down at the floor."
Putin, who spoke first, said the two leaders had discussed Syria as well as
Russia's bid to join the World Trade Organization (WTO), and security issues.
"From my perspective, we've been able to find many commonalities pertaining to
all of those issues," Putin said through an interpreter. "And we'll now further
develop our contacts both on a personal level and on the level of our experts
involved."But "commonalities" on Syria are few and far between: Washington has
sharply escalated its criticism of Moscow for blocking U.N. and Arab League
resolutions meant to force Assad to end his forces' repression of the
opposition. Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accused Russia of
sending attack helicopters to Assad's regime, and the White House pressed
Putin's administration to halt weapons shipments to Syria, which it has supplied
for decades.
Russia has shown little inclination to bow to the Obama administration's
pressure, and even leveled its own counter-accusation: that Washington has been
arming Syria's rebels. Obama spokesman Jay Carney forcefully denied that charge.
Russia and China, as veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council, can
block any resolutions there. It was unclear whether the relatively cordial words
spoken in Los Cabos would translate into action. The White House released a
written joint statement in which Obama and Putin called for "an immediate
cessation of all violence" in Syria and expressed support for a peace plan
crafted by former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Carney has said in the past
that Syria has failed to implement any of the key measures in that blueprint.
But the written statement urged steps toward a "political transition to a
democratic, pluralistic political system that would be implemented by the
Syrians themselves in the framework of Syria's sovereignty, independence, unity,
and territorial integrity."
"We are united in the belief that the Syrian people should have the opportunity
to independently and democratically choose their own future," it said.
The two leaders were meeting for the first time since Russian voters returned
Putin to the Kremlin. Obama had a good personal rapport with former President
Dmitry Medvedev, but officials on both sides have done little to conceal that
the Obama-Putin dynamic is frostier.
Still, Putin described Monday's discussion as "very meaningful." He thanked
Obama for his support for Russia's accession to the WTO, which he said would
"help to further develop the economic relations between our two countries, to
promote the creation of jobs in both countries.
And the Russian leader invited Obama to visit Moscow—a trip that cannot
practically occur before the November elections. Obama has already said he will
miss a summit Putin will host in Vladivostock right around the time of the
Democratic nominating convention. And Republicans, including Mitt Romney, have
been hammering Obama's Russia policy, describing it as all give and no get.
Obama has said that his "reset" in relations got Moscow to cooperate more
closely on economic sanctions meant to force Iran to bow to pressure to halt its
suspect nuclear program, and secured Russian help with opening supply routes for
NATO-led troops in Afghanistan.
"We, in fact, did have a candid, thoughtful and thorough conversation on a whole
range of bilateral and international issues," Obama said.
"We agreed that there's still time and space to resolve diplomatically the issue
of Iran's potential development of nuclear weapons, as well as its interest in
developing peaceful nuclear power," Obama said.
"Mr. President, I look forward to visiting Russia again, and I look forward to
hosting you in the United States," Obama said.
The president alluded to "areas of disagreement" on strategic issues and said he
and Putin agreed "that we can find constructive ways to manage through any
bilateral tensions."
"We discussed a range of strategic issues, including missile defense, and
resolved to continue to work through some of the difficult problems involved
there," said Obama.
Obama drew heavy Republican fire when he told Medvedev in March that he would
have "more flexibility" on issues like missile defense after November's
election.
Russia opposes the deployment of American missile defense assets in countries it
considers part of its traditional sphere of influence. American officials have
taken pains to emphasize that the system targets so-called rogue states like
Iran, not Russia.
Another Saudi Actuarial Disaster
Simon Henderson
Foreign Policy/June 18, 2012 /Washingtom Institute
Washington woke on Saturday to the news of the death of Crown Prince Nayef, who
was next in line for the Saudi throne. The collective sigh of relief by senior
U.S. officials was almost audible -- even though, within hours, President Barack
Obama issued a statement about his "great regret" on learning the news.
The president emphasized the positive. Under Nayef's leadership of the Interior
Ministry, the statement said, "the United States and Saudi Arabia developed a
strong and effective partnership in the fight against terrorism." Obama also
noted that Nayef had "strongly supported the broader partnership between our two
countries."
There was no mention of the stark reality: Nayef was renowned for being
difficult and unimaginative, only able to view policy options in terms of
choices that worsened problems rather than eased them. His support for the
kingdom's religious conservatives during his decades in office had arguably only
added to jihadi extremism. He labeled Shiites in the Eastern Province protesting
at their lack of rights as "acting at the behest of a foreign country," thereby
provoking a confrontation with Iran rather than side-stepping it.
One took on Nayef at one's own peril, so few did. He was outraged when Abdullah,
upon becoming king in 2005, failed to make him second deputy prime minister, a
slot seen as "crown-prince-in-waiting." Abdullah had wanted to limit the power
of his brother princes in the so-called Sudairi faction, whom, he felt, had
spent decades undermining him. Nevertheless, he found himself having to appoint
Nayef's full-brother Sultan as his own heir apparent -- as the largest group of
full-brothers in the royal family, Abdullah just could not ignore the Sudairis.
But Nayef bided his time, waiting for Saudi Arabia's creaky succession system to
work in his favor. He dutifully managed his portfolio at the Interior Ministry
and, by 2009, with Sultan's health declining as well as the king's, was finally
awarded the second deputy prime minister title. When Sultan died of cancer last
October, Nayef's own real opposition was a couple of older brothers who could be
discounted as political nonentities.
Along with Nayef, there probably also dies media interest in the escapades of
one of his ex-wives, Maha al-Sudairi, who was stopped earlier this month as she
was leaving a Paris hotel in the middle of the night, along with a personal
retinue of 60 and attendant luggage, without settling the $8 million bill.
(Princess Maha has something of a track record for this sort of behavior but the
incident dwarfs an earlier tale about her selection of $100,000 worth of
lingerie, which went unpaid for.)
Perhaps the imaginative British tabloid press will report that Nayef's actual
demise -- it appears to have been a heart attack -- was prompted by being told
he needed to write yet another check to cover Maha's extravagances. Although
reportedly suffering from cancer, Nayef was not thought to be on death's door.
Indeed, just last week he had been visited in his Geneva residence by a group
that included the Saudi minister of labor and the kingdom's representative to
the World Trade Organization. His full-brother Ahmad, who has been promoted to
head the Interior Ministry in Nayef's place, was quoted earlier this month as
saying Nayef was in "good health" and would be returning to the kingdom "soon."
The House of Saud has yet to meet a problem it doesn't want to kick down the
road, and slotting Prince Ahmad, 72, into Nayef's old job as interior minister
fits the bill nicely. Leadership of Saudi ministries is handled as if they are
feudal fiefdoms rather than modern bureaucracies: When Sultan, who doubled as
minister of defense as well as crown prince, died, his brother Salman, the newly
minted crown prince, filled the gap. Ahmad and Salman, who are also Sudairis,
would not want the leadership of such an important ministry going to a non-Sudairi
half-brother, such as Prince Muqrin, the 69-year old head of intelligence and
close confidant of King Abdullah.
Tapping Ahmad avoids promoting a grandson of the kingdom's founder Abdul-Aziz,
also known as Ibn Saud, to being a full minister. Among the next generation of
Saudi princes, there is intense competition for such a prestigious role in a
major ministry. The heavyweights in this contest are Mitab bin Abdullah, the
59-year old son of the king and commander of the National Guard; Khalid bin
Sultan, the 63-year old son of the late crown prince and deputy defense
minister; and Muhammad bin Fahd, the 62-year old son of the late King Fahd and
governor of the Eastern Province, the home of the kingdom's oil wealth as well
as its pesky Shiites.
Another one to watch is the counterterrorism chief, the 53-year old Muhammed bin
Nayef. If merit were a critical factor in senior appointments, he perhaps should
be the next minister for his work in eradicating al Qaeda from Saudi Arabia. MbN,
as he is known to U.S. officials, has actually been bloodied in his job,
surviving the 2009 attempted embrace of a suicide bomber who had hidden
explosives in a body orifice.
Therein lies the fundamental problem with leadership of the kingdom: Its
succession mechanism is an actuarial disaster area. Notionally, the throne
should pass from brother to brother (actually usually half-brother) among the
sons of Ibn Saud, who died in 1953. Only sons who are unwilling or universally
accepted as being incompetent are jumped. But the system means that Saudi
monarchs are getting progressively older -- with all that means in terms of
energy for the role and mental acuity.
Since Ibn Saud, the kings of Saudi Arabia have been Saud, Faisal, Khalid, Fahd
and Abdullah. Exact ages are disputable but, accepting that, the trend for age
on accession to the throne is still unmistakable: 51, 60, 63, 61, 82. The trend
line for the age at which they were appointed crown prince is similar: 31, 49,
53, 54, 59.
If we add Sultan and Nayef, crown princes who died before becoming king, to the
series, the problem becomes even clearer. The two princes assumed the role at 81
and 78 respectively -- and Salman is still a worrying 76 years old.
The kings of Saudi Arabia are graying, and look to become even grayer in the
years ahead. The logical way to resolve this problem is to allow the succession
system to jump down to the next generation. It arguably should happen but almost
certainly won't -- personal ambition of individual princes outweighs their
appreciation of their mutual interest. Given Saudi Arabia's centrality in the
Middle East, if not the world, that may turn out to be to the detriment of all
of us.
Simon Henderson, the Baker fellow and director of the Gulf and Energy Policy
Program at The Washington Institute, is author of After King Abdullah:
Succession in Saudi Arabia.
Note: This op-ed was originally published by Foreign Policy under a title that
does not reflect The Washington Institute's point of view.