10/18/15

Two weeks ago I wrote a post regarding the Yemen war: “Yemen – The Forgotten Human Catastrophe.”

The “famed” CNN anchor (infamous is more like it) Fareed Zakaria gave me an unintended compliment when today he devoted a segment of his GPS program to that war.

In my blog I criticized Saudi’s tactics in fighting that war, but emphasized my support for the strategy of regaining control of Yemen back from the Iranian-backed rebels.

Zakaria has a different take. While he makes a provocative connection between the US accidental bombing of a hospital in Kunduz and the indiscriminate bombing that Saudi is carrying on in Yemen, with US support, he takes it from there and is endeavoring to make Saudi the major bad player in the Middle East blaming them for all of Muslim extremism, thus terror. He makes the connection through their support for the Wahhabi teaching of Islam. This is not the first time that Zakaria has taken a very anti-Saudi line in his program. I am not sure if he is really simply anti-Saudi or more likely pro-Iranian, but he is wrong on his Middle East analysis the vast majority of the time and he clearly is wrong in seeing Saudi as the major problem in the Middle East as opposed to Iran, which is the major problem.

While the Wahhabi teachings are clearly very extreme and may indeed be the basis for many of the Islamist terror groups, Saudi itself has done a pretty good job, starting AFTER 9/11/2001, in fighting Islamist terror and has clearly taken a stand against it. Iran, on the other hand, promotes Islamist terror all the time as an integral part of its foreign policy tools. Saudi has no ambitions of becoming a regional hegemon, while Iran clearly does. One can see it in its actions and the duty to “export” the Iranian revolution and hegemony is even spelled out in the Iranian constitution.

To be clear, Zakaria’s analysis on anything to do with foreign affairs is mostly wrong; he is very biased and is not beyond twisting the facts and his own “prognostication” record in order to “prove” his point. Overall, he is one of the most knowledgeable foreign affairs commentators in the US TV scene and, at the same time, one of the least reliable, clearly promoting his own agenda and beliefs rather than providing a fair analysis of the facts.

Zakaria’s continuous attacks on Saudi and leniency in his analysis of anything to do with Iran calls into question not only his abilities as Middle East affairs commentator and anchor of an important program on world affairs, but it is also at a level where I would ask if there is something more behind it.

Is there something more fundamental to justify such bias and obvious agenda?