With the latest spurious allegations concerning the alleged hack of his phone by the Saudis, Jeff Bezos brought himself back into an unwelcome and embarrassing spotlight, involving nude pictures of himself cheating on his ex-wife, all seemingly for the sake of destroying the reputation of the Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman. His claim that Mohammed bin Salman taunted him with photos of the supposedly “secret” affair and then somehow used his own phone’s Whatsapp account to hack Bezos’s phone and to expose the nudes, which were then leak to the public remains unsubstantiated despite the mention of undisclosed forensic investigators supposedly responsible for these latest disclosures to the soap opera.
The story about the alleged hack broke exactly a year ago, after Jeff Bezos and his wife filed for divorce in January 2019. Soon after, the National Enquirer publicized pictures of Bezos’ affair with his girlfriend, including “intimate texts and photos.” Bezos accused the Enquirer of extortion & blackmail. Bezos, backed by his security chief, accused Saudis of having taken part in a hack that led to the leak of these photos. The Saudis denied having anything to do with that. Soon after, information came out that Bezos’ girlfriend gave the photos and texts to her brother, who leaked them to the media.
Bezos had further alleged that the owner of the Enquirer had a business relationship with Mohammed bin Salman, but after the revelation came out concerning his girlfriend & her brother’s involvement in the leak, did not appear to pursue this matter further. The story died down despite Bezos’ personal op-eds with accusations, but in January 2020 Bezos doubled down on his initial allegations. He produced a poorly sourced UN report produced by Agnes Callamard, and an equally questionable forensics report by investigators he paid for, claiming that there was a hack and that the hack came from the Crown Prince’s account. Increasing evidence point in other directions.
For instance, US prosecutors tasked with investigating the alleged leak/hack say they have evidence that the girlfriend and her brother are the culprits. Bezos is yet to explain what connection, if any, there is between the Crown Prince and Bezos’ girlfriend. Was she in possession of Mohammed bin Salman’s phone? Did he first hack the account and then have her leak it to the press in exchange for a princely sum of money? The increasingly embarrassing situation went from bed to worse in terms of optics for Bezos himself when a number of cyberexperts started questioning the conclusions in the forensics report, stating that Bezos has not actually established a technical link between Mohammed bin Salman’s account and Bezos’ phone.
At issue now is Bezos’ central claim—that his phone was hacked at all. Whether Bezos will spin these developments into a conspiracy theory—in which his girlfriend was in on it with Mohammed bin Salman, seduced Bezos to get into his good graces and ruin his marriage and personal life, and then, after the Crown Prince hacked Bezos phone, took the resulting leak and shared it with a tabloid—remains unclear. Increasingly, however, pressure is mounting on Bezos to back his claims, as his allegations appear increasingly fantastical yet persistent.
These accusations raise several inconvenient questions that neither Bezos, nor the mainstream media which parroted his side of the story without doing the basics of any ethical journalist—which is to say, demanding evidence of these scandalous claim—bother to address.
For instance, why did Jeff Bezos keep silent about the Crown Prince’s alleged knowledge and “taunts”, allegedly made BEFORE the hack, all this time? Why did he not say anything even at the time when he first reported the incident?
Further, he does not explain how Mohammed bin Salman would even know about this clandestine liaison. Did he have a gaggle of spies follow the Amazon founder around? Or was Bezos always so careless with his online activity that the Saudis could have hacked him long before and been tracking him for some time?
Which raises yet another natural question: how is it that Jeff Bezos, the founder of a gigantic company with millions of accounts, could have failed to secure his own personal data? And can any of his customers trust him with their own privacy? Supposedly bad blood between Bezos and the Saudis is related to a business dispute over his interest in building Amazon in KSA, but failing to address Saudi concerns over Amazon’s handling of Saudi customers’ data. If so, Bezos’ behavior is fraught with irony.
The next question any reasonable person could/should ask is why would the heir to the throne of a major Middle Eastern country use his own personal account to engage in any sort of illicit and unethical activity, much less something blatantly criminal as a hack of one of the wealthiest individuals in the world? Is there no one Mohammed bin Salman could hire, even if that is something he was contemplating for unknowable reasons? Why would he make himself so vulnerable, especially considering the many other character attacks he’s been facing since early on in his tenure?
Finally, even IF there is technical evidence linking Mohammed bin Salman’s Whatsapp account to the hack, how do we know that the Crown Prince’s phone was not hacked or spoofed, which is more than likely? For all it’s worth, Bezos himself probably had interacted with the Crown Prince over that account and could have easily leaked it elsewhere. But why would Bezos be involved in a set-up that discredited him in light of his own personal drama unfolding before the world’s eyes?
Rather than speculating on Bezos’ motivations, I invite the readers to examine his actions, which indicate that this story is about far more than just Bezos’ personal issues with the Saudis (if any of these rumors are even true).
Shortly following the break out of the media storm over the renewed allegations, Bezos tweeted a picture of himself from Jamal Khashoggi’s memorial with the hashtag “Jamal”. Who else attended that memorial? Jamal Khashoggi’s Turkish fiancé, known for her support of Turkey’s authoritarian president Erdogan, and none other than the UN rapporteur Agnes Callamard, a fierce defender of Qassem Soleimani against US strikes, and the allegedly impartial UN official responsible for the UN investigation of the Saudi role in the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. Discrediting her claims to objectivity, the very same Callamard has now sided with Bezos demanding an international investigation into the hacking allegations against Mohammed bin Salman, despite the lack of evidence. What a coincidence!
Bezos was also pictured with the founder and executive director of CAIR, Nihad Awad, at the memorial. CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in investigations concerning money laundering to Muslim Brotherhood-backed terrorist organizations, such as Hamas, and has extensive links to the Brotherhood.
By tweeting this image shortly after the renewed claims, Bezos admits the following:
He has a political agenda in going after the Saudi Crown Prince, beyond any business dispute
The Washington Post, which Bezos owns, is not objective but rather openly sides with the ex-Saudi spook cum turncoat cum Qatari agent Jamal Khashoggi—despite the Washington Post’s own admission that the Qatar Foundation International fed Khashoggi the articles he used to attack the Crown Prince in the pieces basically rewritten to the level of readability by his editor Karen Attiah. The Washington Post, if it has benefited financially from this arrangement, may itself be implicated as an unregistered foreign agent in violation of US laws, and Bezos is openly hinting at that. Karen Attiah, after all, also took part in the memorial.
Finally, Bezos’s accusations against Mohammed bin Salman are directly tied to Qatar and the Khashoggi matter. This thinly veiled message affirms that Bezos, Callamard, and others are deeply involved with state actors who are fueling the ongoing political campaign to discredit, smear, and ultimately oust the Crown Prince.
What could be Bezos’ political calculus in this unseemly scenario, where he is publicly making himself into a laughingstock at least as much as he is turning Mohammed bin Salman into fodder for supposedly reputable national publications, including the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal (who published all of this uncritically)? Furthermore, why is he returning to the apparently debunked story after a year and subjecting himself to potential embarrassment and discreditation, likely knowing fully well that there is no “there, there”?
There is no mystery. The strategy by Mohammed bin Salman’s enemies, from the very beginning of the Khashoggi affair, has been to make it appear that the Khashoggi death is not an isolated incident; rather, the claim has been that Mohammed bin Salman has a strategy of surveilling, hacking, physically intimidating, and even trying to abduct dissidents, critics, and opponents of his policies. Since Khashoggi’s death, both the NY Times and WaPo, known for taking conspiracy theories and baseless allegations from the Qatar-funded Arabic and English language media and giving them legitimacy without ever providing counterpoints or raising doubt about these claims, have printed numerous articles giving space to known leftist, pan-Arabist and pro-Muslim Brotherhood critics of the Crown Prince and his Vision2030 reform plan, who reside in Canada, the UK, and the US and who have all claimed that they had been threatened, harassed, or surveilled by Saudi intelligence in the wake of Khashoggi.
Prior to Khashoggi’s death, however, these individuals resorted to broader statements claiming that Mohammed bin Salman was responsible for a crackdown on dissent (read: antagonistic activism) inside the Kingdom. The Khashoggi affair gave an opening to opportunists to push for creating an image of Mohammed bin Salman as an irredeemable villain who will never stop shutting down anyone who stands up to him. Bezos has clearly aligned himself with other agents of this strategy, and despite past evidence showing that other parties were responsible for the embarrassing leak of his “dick pics” (technical term), jumped in full throttle into this morass.
The calculus here is not so much to “prove” that Mohammed bin Salman is personally guilty of this cyberattack, which may ultimately prove impossible even if any evidence exists, but to embarrass him (again) to such an extent that his own family will decide that he deserves no more chances to fix his reputation in light of this ongoing PR/information warfare nightmare, and should be removed from a public role or at least from his current position.
As for the timing, if Bezos, as it increasingly appears to be the case, is in cahoots with foreign regimes and possibly elements of domestic intelligence agencies who have an ax to grind with Mohammed bin Salman, the recycling of the old conspiracy theory is nothing new. It follows a pattern of other such thinly veiled character attacks on the Crown Prince, and likely came from the same Qatari playbook. The aim is to weaponize the media and to cause a public fracas, at any cost. Furthermore, the thought is that that the public is heavily dependent on Amazon for services, and therefore anything will go. By contrast, the Western public does not perceive itself as being dependent on Saudi Arabia or its Crown Prince, and presumably has no loyalties to him, even if he is unjustly accused of crimes he did not commit. Timing, however, is of interest here.
The Iran-Qatar connection fueling Qatar’s interest in continuous attacks on Mohammed bin Salman
January 2020 started with the killing of the head of IRGC’s Al Quds Brigade Qassem Soleimani, which appeared to be a blow to the Iranian regime’s hegemonic ambitions, especially as it struggles to contain internal protests and faces uprisings against its proxies in Iraq and Lebanon. Responding to this event, Iran caused a self-inflicted PR disaster when it shot down a Ukrainian passenger plane with 176 civilians on board—and lied about it for three days. Following this fiasco, Qatar offered $3B to Iran to cover the costs of paying the families of the victims. There may have been some awkwardness to the exchange, as the US used the Al Udeid base in Qatar for the operation, and yet the Qatari officials traveled to Iran immediately thereafter to offer condolences on the death of Soleimani.
Qatar’s public siding with a US adversary did not go unnoticed. Indeed, it constituted yet another political example of Qatar openly supporting Iran’s aggressive action in the region. Qatar’s past silence during the oil tanker crises resulted in an intelligence report indicating that Doha was in cahoots with Tehran and covered for Iran, rather than share information that could have prevented these attacks. Analysis of Qatar’s long-term relationship with Iran and its reaction to any steps by the US and others that would have had any negative impact on the regime indicates that Qatar may have even facilitated the attacks on ARAMCO in Saudi Arabia in September, widely attributed to Iran.
Increased scrutiny over these geopolitical concerns are a massive headache to Doha, which had spent millions on lobbying efforts in the United States and Europe, and has developed a sophisticated media apparatus to cultivate an image of a pro-Western, friendly country open for business. After a series of missteps involving its close ally Iran, Qatar may have been desperate to distract from its own US government ire-raising role in these events, and sought to redirect the negative scrutiny and public outrage onto a favored scapegoat for all sorts of scandals, the Crown Prince, who was made vulnerable due to Qatar’s prior character assassination campaigns as well as the Saudi government’s complete lack of PR acumen. Bezos, who may have personal issues with Mohammed bin Salman, had already proven his usefulness against him through the consistent role the Washington Post has played in not letting the Khashoggi affair die down.
Indeed, Bezos himself made that issue highly personal by attending Khashoggi’s memorial alongside Callamard, Attiah, and Khashoggi’s Turkish fiancé. On the one hand, here was an opportunity to give Iran time to recover from bad publicity long enough to be able to focus on strategy and shutting down protests—when the Western world is busy gossiping about the hapless Crown Prince, they are not paying attention to the violent crackdown and torture of protesters, and killing of journalists in Iraq and Lebanon; on the other hand, it was another opportunity to resurrect the ghost of Khashoggi, putting more salt on the wounds of Western perception of Saudis.
But why would anyone side with Qatar, especially someone as wealthy as Bezos, who needs not depend on Qatari largesse? And why have other media outlets, presumably with no business grievances with the Kingdom, and portions of Western intelligence agencies, be lending a hand to these dubious operations, which have turned the US media into a battleground for authoritarian foreign regimes and unregistered agents of influence?
With Bezos, those who are fueling this witch hunt have likely appealed to his vindictive motives following the business dispute with Saudi Arabia. Bezos has a reputation going back years before Mohammed bin Salman’s ascent to his position. And aside from the Crown Prince, Bezos has engaged in public spats with other corporate leaders not so long ago. Motive, meet opportunity. The media did not need to be “sold”, as it has been aligned with Qatar’s agenda in the West since after the imposition of the boycott against Qatar by Saudi Arabia, and the ensuing Qatari campaign to win friends and to destroy Saudi Arabia’s image in the West.
How the Media Circus around Bezos’ Unfounded Claims Carries Water for Foreign Regimes
The Strange Case of Cybersecurity “Expert” and Khashoggi Ally Iyad El-Baghdadi
A Palestinian born critic of Saudi Arabia Iyad El-Baghdadi, in a lengthy soft-ball interview with the Deutsche Welle on the subject of the hack, writes: “…Then, Bezos in February of 2019 wrote a Medium post saying that he had just experienced a blackmail attempt and hinted very strongly that Saudi Arabia was probably involved. We immediately put two and two together. Number one: We know that MbS has a problem with Bezos, that was very clear because the propaganda output of his regime was really aggressive against him. What we also know is that they had an ongoing business relationship. And we know that Jamal Khashoggi’s murder came in the middle of that. So we published our findings online and two days later we were contacted by the head of security for Bezos (editor’s note: Gavin de Becker, a longtime security consultant hired by Bezos), who said: ‘You guys are onto something and we have certain information we want to share with you as well.’”
El-Baghdadi claims to have “worked” with Bezos’ security team on investigating the incident. El-Baghdadi admits to having worked with Jamal Khashoggi in the past on his “MENA democracy” initiative. Khashoggi had been building an anti-Saudi think tank and engaging in cyberoperations against Saudi online activists when he was killed. El-Baghdadi’s distaste for the Saudi government is not explicitly explained, nor is his fellowship with Khashoggi ever fully presented, but both have had a history of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood ideology and resented Saudi outreach to Israel. El-Baghdadi, for instance, wrote of “two Israels”, with one of which “no peace” is possible, claiming that there are no Israeli centrists or peace partners, only “colonial masters”, and calling for “resistance”. Khashoggi was both opposed to normalization with Israel and wrote against Jews. What is interesting here is that El-Baghdadi was hired by Bezos’ security chief after the hack, but his role appears limited to propaganda, as he had no access to the technical information regarding any allegedly cyberattacks on Bezos and he admitted as much. His reputation of being affiliated with Khashoggi and attacking Saudi Arabia should, but somehow does not, discredit his professional conclusions of what must have transpired, even though they are based not on technical forensic evidence, but on ideological conclusions. El-Baghdadi believes that Mohammed bin Salman was personally responsible for the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi based on Khashoggi’s personal criticism of the Crown Prince and his policies.
El-Baghdadi even states that Bezos’ security team and he started to “coordinate things”, without explaining what it is they coordinated—and the DW reporters do not challenge him on this issue. What is public knowledge, however, is that in the same year after Bezos’ alleged hack, El-Baghdadi, speaking to Qatar’s mouthpiece, Al Jazeera, claimed that he was in the “crosshairs” of the Saudi government, that he is a pro-”democracy” activist (does that mean he is calling for a violent internal coup against a popular heir to the throne?) despite having no connection to the Kingdom or its people, and many months after Khashoggi’s death (May 2019), and felt “in danger”. He apparently came to that realization after starting to work with Bezos’ team in February 2019, after the scandal regarding Bezos’ hack had already waned in the public eye. Did Bezos put him up to that?
Or did Bezos hire El-Baghdadi to make these statements, that would not only keep the Khashoggi story alive well past its due date, but would appear to substantiate his own concerns about Saudi Arabi? If Qatar was supportive of this apparent collusion, El-Baghdadi’s claims would further the idea being propagated that Khashoggi was neither an isolated case nor an issue arising from “rogue operatives”, but rather part of a strategic and brutal crackdown against Mohammed bin Salman’s critics. This would further distract from the emerging information that Khashoggi himself was no white fluffy kitten, but an experienced intelligence operative who had sold out to Qatar, and was weaponized against Riyadh. The story was soon picked up without any criticism by various Western publications, including The Daily Beast, which claimed that the activist was “forced into hiding”—although he continued to tweet and speak to the media.
To return to the interview, DW, despite this suspicious background that undermined the story, did not in any way push back, but rather gave El-Baghdadi plenty of space to attack Mohammed bin Salman, repeat unproven claims that the Crown Prince massacred Khashoggi in the Consulate, and link all of that to the Bezos hack as revenge for the Washington Post’s coverage of the Khashoggi affair. Of course, once again, DW never asks about any possible collusion between the Washington Post and the Qatar Foundation International, nor whether El-Baghdadi benefited financially in any way from his relationship with all these actors.
Even when El-Baghdadi makes clear the case of his personal collusion with the Bezos team in describing the extent of their professional collaboration, and even after admitting that there is no evidence that the phone was compromised at the time Bezos alleged or earlier, the reporter lets the activist continue as an expert witness on this subject, without questioning any aspect of his story or motives. Thus, DW, by failing to do its job and remain skeptical of such sweeping claim, legitimized someone with a clear political agenda, gave him a platform, and introduced him to the public eye, not as a political actor, but as a victim who is the “good guy” in this confusing chain of events. DW relinquished its role as a neutral observer and objective medium of information and sided with Bezos and Team Khashoggi.
What makes this situation still more sinister is that, like the BBC, DW receives public funding from the German government. In other words, Germany, as a state, is essentially taking part in this situation and siding with Bezos, El-Baghdadi, and promoting unsubstantiated claims about Khashoggi’s death. Aside from Qatar, then, European governments and their media tools, are playing an interventionist political role in this campaign.
Agnes Callamard, meanwhile, appears to be backing an El-Baghdadi-like activist in UK, who is funded by unknown forces (possibly Qatar, some pro-MB foundations, or Bezos), Ghanem Almasarir, who hails from the Kingdom, but shares El-Baghdadi’s virulently anti-Saudi views. Almasarir now came out to allege that he, too, was being electronically surveilled by Saudi intelligence, allegedly hacked through the use of the same Israeli malware that was supposedly used to spy on Khashoggi and El-Baghdadi, and now has been allowed by the UK to sue the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for these alleged activities. Even if the case ultimately is thrown out, it is clear that he will get the attention he wishes, and the indelible damage to Saudi Arabia as a country, and Mohammed bin Salman personally, will have been done.
In yet another recent incident, the FBI—which since Robert Mueller’s time has had CAIR and other Islamist organizations involved in sensitivity trainings— supposedly foiled an attempted abduction of a young Saudi YouTuber, Abdulrahman Almutairi, by the Saudis. The Daily Beast report is almost entirely based on Almutairi’s own story, in which he claims that Mohammed bin Salman sent a hit team for him in the airport to kidnap him because he had criticized the Crown Prince. The likelihood of such a plot against such an unknown person is extremely low.
But what is obvious is that The Daily Beast and other publications are eager to report such sensationalist accounts, without verifying details, because they confirm the inherent bias against the Crown Prince and in favor of the “dissidents”, young people without jobs, funded by unknown organizations, and living abroad, whose sole raison d’etre seems to be making low quality podcasts and videos trash-talking Mohammed bin Salman. All these individuals are supposedly of such importance to the Crown Prince that he would risk a major scandal with the United Stated government in an attempt to illegally recover them and bring them back home rather than ignore their yammerings. The readers are invited to believe this version of the events on the ground that “reputable journalists” wrote it up.
In the case of Almutairi, if they media had so much as checked his social media account, they would have discovered a self-revealed history of mental health issues (Almutairi has written about being bipolar), discussing his hospital stays and mandatory medication for his condition. A cursory review would also disclose that he was studying on a Saudi government scholarship and KSA was also paying his medical bills. Due to his frequently erratic behavior, the government finally cut off his tuition. Almutairi complained about it on Instagram (screenshot); in short, he was a mentally unstable, disgruntled individual, who ended up calling the FBI on his own father, accusing him of working with the Saudi government to abduct him. (It is possible that his father came to visit to persuade him to return home for continued medical treatment.) In other words, he is less than a credible source, yet the media did not look into any of these details, thus essentially misinforming the public and creating the impression that Almutairi’s story was exactly what it appeared to be. These media outlets used a mentally ill individual to push their agenda, without disclosing the facts, shamefully exposing him to the kind of public attention that could aggravate his condition.
It seems that Bezos and Callamard are working together to identify anyone who may be persuaded to make similar claims against Saudis to bolster Bezos’ own credibility, but also in order to discredit the Crown Prince.
The Clown Choir Whitewashed Qatar’s Hacking but Echoes Baseless Claims Against the Saudis
The rest of the so-called “mainstream media” has hardly been any more professional nor has demonstrated any journalistic integrity over this matter.
The Philadelphia Inquirer covered this story with the following headline (thinly veiled as an opinion piece): “Saudi Arabia murdered a journalist and hacked Jeff Bezos. Trump sent them U.S. troops”. The rest of the piece is very much along the same vein, embracing unproven or discredited and openly biased assertions, without even an attempt to present a counterpoint that could shed light on the otherwise outrageous scenario being presented. Given the increasing public distrust in the media and the disappearing skill of distinguishing between opinion & fact, even if such an article is categorized as an “opinion” piece, at best it will feed into existing perceptions, at worst some may take it as information, rather than a personal position.
The NY Post, in its initial coverage, took Bezos allegations as “evidence“ rather than claims.
The Washington Post, not surprisingly, has followed its owner’s line with fierce loyalty. It has published multiple stories on this issue, all of them equally one-sided, and despite the paucity of technical evidence, reaffirms that these allegations “implicate” Mohammed bin Salman in the hack.
The Daily Beast coverage runs was about the same.
The NY Times makes an effort at appearing objective by covering what the “UN experts” have said about the hack, but does not question their expertise nor their conclusion nor the fact that the same experts had previously produced a one-sided report on Khashoggi lacking in facts or evidence.
Vanity Fair amps up the drama by using a conclusive description of the “MBS-Bezos” hack as a potential “ticking time bomb”.
AP News follows the lead claiming, again, with very little backing or follow-up investigation, that the Saudi Crown Prince’s phone is linked to the alleged hack.
NBC News once again focuses on the UN experts, and their completely unproven (and likely unprovable claim) that the alleged hack was aimed at influencing Washington Post coverage of Saudi Arabia. It is hard to take seriously such an allegation, given that the chickens have already flown the coop and the incriminating information against Bezos has already been published; he has divorced and lost half his fortune. How could he possibly be influenced by that incident to change all of the coverage about KSA?
The Hill takes fearmongering to the next level, with the writers claiming that now everyone who is critical of KSA could be endanger of being hacked.
MarketWatch echoes the mass media hysteria.
Ditto for Axios.
PBS also takes Jeff Bezos’ claims as proven fact. If only the media had stuck to following the late Jim Lehrer’s rules for ethical journalism, perhaps the issue of public trust would not have been quite so evasive.
And on and on it goes.
In short, once again, the scions of journalism have beclowned themselves with premature, one-sided coverage based on a high profile figure’s sensationalist claims, and have failed to follow-up with their own investigation on any of these comments or even to wait for other experts to weigh in. In the fray to be the first to “break” the “news” that Bezos claimed something that has already been largely discredited, these outlets once again put their own credibility at question.
Why would they take such a risk? There are several observations to be made of this baseless kerfuffle.
First, these same outlets reacted in exactly the same way to the initial reports of Khashoggi’s disappearance and death. They based their reports on leaks and claims made by the foreign media (Turkish intelligence affiliates known for their outright disinformation), and in some cases had to publish retractions of debunked histories concerning the case. They had failed to inform the public of essential facts concerning Khashoggi’s past, and to this day, many of these outlets, particularly the Washington Post, refer to Khashoggi as a “dissident” and “journalist” without disclosing his relationship to intelligence, to Qatar, and to the fact that others were basically writing his columns for him. These outlets have worked to shape a narrative about Khashoggi, just as they are currently working to shape a narrative about Jeff Bezos’ phone, and have not allowed facts to get in the way of spinning these tales. At no point have any of these outlets set their own reporters to investigate the situation on the ground in Turkey after Khashoggi’s disappearance. Adopting a Turkish intelligence agency’s narrative is not merely lazy, unethical journalism, but rather turns the US press into agents for foreign governments and their intelligence agendas.
Second, in both cases, the outlets have used very similar language to describe the stories. For instance, many have used sensational and personal language to describe the Crown Prince, referencing the “bone saw”, or describing him as “dark”. Similarly, now, the same outlets are peddling the Bezos narrative almost word for word, and rely on the same UN “experts” for “analysis”. After the Saudi Embassy denied the accusations, not one probed further or contacted the Saudis for a more detailed comment on the allegations. Just as the slogan of the “MeToo” movement has become “believe all women” (with questionable results), the slogan of the current craze around the Saudis appears to be “believe all attackers/dissidents/anyone with a grievance”. Investigative rigor of pursuing all perspectives has gone out the window, perhaps because the agenda is not to inform the public, but to shape the narrative, and also to give a particular portion of the readership what they are inclined to believe and want to hear. Would these outlets make a successful American businessman a villain of a story that also involves a controversial Saudi prince, whose reputation they themselves had already undermined with previous reporting? Doing so would amount to an admission of incompetence or malice against Mohammed bin Salman in previous reporting.
Finally, it is Qatar rather than Saudi Arabia that has a reputation for hacking critics. An Arab journalist details the cyberattack on him following his investigation into Qatar’s policies, one of 1,500 celebrities reportedly hacked by the agents of the country. Elliott Broidy, a former Republican Party apparatchik who has gained his own renown for allegedly plotting policies to counter Qatar’s influence in the US with an Emirati operative, unsuccessfully sued Doha for the alleged hack and leak of his email, which revealed embarrassing personal and professional information, leading to his resignation from his post. However, while his legal attempt at holding Qatar and its agents accountable for the hack has thus far failed, his efforts at disclosing the various parties involved in illicit Qatari schemes found their way into the press. Even the NY Times was forced to acknowledge that hacking has become a strategic method of promoting its agenda and intimidating potential critics, as well as a pathway to espionage for Qatar.
And those who have followed Qatar’s increasingly aggressive interference in the West and foreign affairs, as David Reaboi has, have noted that even as Qatar openly engaged in aggressive and criminal activity, the US media has become a “megaphone for foreign agitprop”. The above-mentioned outlets all continued to support the pro-Qatar, anti-Saudi narrative, even after Qatar’s hacking scandal broke, revealing that it was not merely a coincidence, but pecuniary and political motives, that drove some in the media to align with a country openly using its intelligence to meddle and spy in the US, and hack US citizens.
Given the ironic role these outlets have played whitewashing Qatar’s hacks at the time, the contrast with the coverage of the allegations concerning Mohammed bin Salman is striking. What gives this different treatment, where in the first instance, over a thousand reputable critics came forward as witnesses against Qatar’s hacking, and where various well known entities were implicated in the recruitment of agents for the leak and distribution of Broidy’s kompromat, and where in the second instance there is little more than Bezos’ personal vendetta backed by weak poorly sourced reports by his political allies?
How did Mohammed bin Salman Arouse the Media and Intelligence Agencies’ Ire?
Why are the campaigners against the Crown Prince so relentless in their hounding?
David Reaboi outlines some of the ignoble role the media has played in this gruesome saga, not as an impartial arbiter of some moral standards, nor as an objective pursuer of truths, but rather as nothing more than crude tools employed by various autocratic foreign regimes in pursuit of their anti-Saudi foreign policy.
However, there is more to the story (and a long litany of Mohammed bin Salman’s enemies) than just the media.
No sooner had Mohammed bin Salman burst onto the political scene than controversy and media speculation about the heir to the throne began. That event coincided with the announcement of the boycott against Qatar following Doha’s rejection of the thirteen demands put forth by the members of the Anti-Terrorism Quartet (KSA, UAE, Egypt, and Bahrain) and which included the calls to shut down Al Jazeera, an appeal to move away from Iran, the push to drop support for various terrorist groups and the funding of Muslim Brotherhood, and a warning against further meddling in the politics of various MENA states. Simultaneously dealing with the Qatar crisis, the Crown Prince was also handling the ongoing war in Yemen, an aggressive push for domestic reform, and the necessary move to consolidate power, which included a corruption probe against some Royal Family members and their associates with a reputation for involvement in dubious financial and political schemes.
Not too long after, the rumors began.
Some were focused on Mohammed bin Salman’s alleged personal hypocrisy, including the supposedly shocking allegations that the Prince who went after some people for corruption himself had purchased an expensive yacht, chateaux, and a painting. Some of these rumors were so poorly sourced that the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal were forced to withdraw these stories. New rumors started flying with the corruption probe, each more incredible than the next. The rumors began with a story in an obscure Arabic language Qatari-backed publication in London, quickly moved to the known pro-Qatar vehicle the Middle East Eye, and from there, in various forms and with details increasingly vague and unverifiable, migrated to The Guardian, NY Times, and other major publications.
The story, which sounded dubious from the start, concerned some official under investigation for corruption allegedly being tortured to death. His personal details and circumstances of his supposed demise increasingly disappeared as the story moved up in ranks. No New York Times or other journalist ever bothered following-up on the story and either collaborating or dismissing these allegations, and nothing ever came of it due to the lack of detail. However, the story circulated for months firmly embedding itself in the public mind, even as details faded over time, perhaps deliberately so.
The spread of similarly emotionally appealing but vague and unsupported stories attacking Mohammed bin Salman’s character were published with increased frequency as his first visit to the United States drew closer. By the time he arrived for a three week series of meetings, the media war, mostly consisting of subtle attacks on his image as a reformer popular with young people and with a mindset for a blossoming relationship with the West, appeared to be at its apogee. Most of these allegations smacked of an old Soviet-style smear campaign. Thanks to the widespread network of Qatari and Qatar-funded media, character assassination was back in vogue
The Aim of the Attacks is to Discredit the Crown Prince and to Demoralize His Supporters
Character assassination can be broadly defined as the “malicious and unjustified harming of a person’s good reputation”. It can, but not always does, fall under the legal category of “defamation of character”; however, the smear techniques used to destroy one’s reputation are not always false, nor necessarily carry legal culpability. In international relations, various forms of character assassination have been used as part of information warfare strategy to smear, demoralize, and, ultimately, to disarm their opponents. Information warfare is not a simple concept to define. According to some sources, information warfare involves information collection, transport, protection, and manipulation with the aim of gaining a competitive advantage over one’s adversary, whether in the military, intelligence, political, or business context. Other elements may include information disturbance, degradation, and denial. Another way of looking at it is as a combination of electronic warfare, cyberwarfare, and psy-ops (psychological operations).
Information warfare utilizes cyberspace, advanced computing, mobile networks, unmanned systems, and social media to gather intelligence, disrupt the operational capabilities of the other adversary, and to engage in a variety of tasks to advance the mission of the governmental or non-state actors.
Character assassination is an element of information warfare that can be pursued through a variety of disinformation tactics and is generally considered a type of psy-ops. More recently, however, traditional means of character assassination, has also relied on various types of cyberwarfare, such as hacking to advance the agenda of destroying the reputation of the target. In the course of the past two years, all of these methods had been used with the clear aim of bringing about the downfall of the Crown Prince, or at least weakening his relationships with Western countries and portions of the Arab world. The death of the former Saudi government spokesman and intelligence officer Jamal Khashoggi sparked a spike in attacks on the Crown Prince, which bordered on obsessive. For months, not a day passed without some supposedly objective Western outlet characterizing him in highly negative terms and by contrast, falsely painting Khashoggi to be an innocent journalist, whose only crime was his criticism of the monarchy and who met his end at Mohammed bin Salman’s hands for that reason.
The attacks were soon interspersed with negative publicity related to a group of women’s rights activists, both men and women, who were detained and eventually put on trial after being accused of working with foreign entities against Saudi Arabia. Indeed, journalists and political operations seemed to merge into one as increasingly negative stories about Saudi Arabia, regardless of how irrelevant, superficial, or one-sided continued to proliferate. Most journalists somehow managed to tie in literally anything that happened in US politics or in the region to Jamal Khashoggi and to the Crown Prince—whether it was the war in Yemen or the story of runaway Saudi girls who have had conflicts with their strict families. Mohammed bin Salman’s face was brought to every publication and was made to embody some abstract evil, while the incorrect narrative about Khashoggi’s death, often based entirely on leaks from Turkish newspapers affiliated with the local intelligence agencies, took on increasingly gruesome and often contradictory iterations.
The result of this coordinated series of attacks included the withdrawal of various lobbyists and business partners from work with Saudi Arabia, two Congressional resolutions holding Mohammed bin Salman personally responsible for Khashoggi’s death, a joint Congressional resolution pushing for US withdrawal from Yemen (which was vetoed by President Trump), and negative coverage of Saudi Arabia even following terrorist attacks and acts of war committed against its people and infrastructure by Iran and its proxies. The character assassins who went after the Crown Prince were successful in creating negative impressions of his person because, they took advantage of three factors: 1.) the bitter political climate in the US, 2.) the information vacuum left by the Saudis themselves, and 3.) unsuspecting Western audiences who were overwhelmed with one-sided stories from a multitude of seemingly respectable outlets. The non-stop coverage permeated every conceivable type of institutions, and while the Khashoggi-related discussions waxed and waned, the attacks on the Crown Prince himself never fully abated.
The media played a significant role in facilitating these attacks.
Who are the Forces Behind the Media and Political Campaigns to Punish or Oust the Crown Prince?
The media has allowed Turkish leaks to drive the narrative, showing little concern for truth or justice, and willingly publishing even the wildest stories, taking little responsibility when these tidbits from Erdogan’s table changed momentarily. Essentially, the leading Western Press, as Lee Smith writes, has become a tool of political operatives and foreign and domestic intelligence agencies with an agenda—to take down Mohammed bin Salman, and to replace him with members of the reactionary faction that was at the helm prior to his surprising rise to power. Ironically, the same people who blame the Saudi government for its alleged support for Saudi members of Al Qaeda who perpetrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks are gunning to remove the very person who pushed that faction from power. Is their agenda modernization and, however gradual, liberalization and reform of Saudi Arabia, or are they merely concerned with access to their old and well-known players?
The Old Guard, with its connections to the Western intelligence agencies, was at the forefront of assorted leaks and fabrications that plagued the early months of investigations into Khashoggi’s death and subverted the assessment of the security situation. Turkish President Erdogan immediately took advantage of the events to push his own narrative, claiming to have a secret tape tying the Crown Prince to the murder; however, the tape itself was never fully released and to this day, nothing concrete is known about what actually happened. It was obvious that at the time that Turkey, which was pushing for a pathway into Syria and which was enduring increasing tensions with the United States, was using this opportunity to extort Saudi Arabia and the United States, with bad optics if nothing else, in exchange for significant leeway to pursue its own agenda.
Mohammed bin Salman’s corruption probe may have recovered some money for the country and temporarily stopped some Islamist sympathizers and funders from their destabilizing activities inside the country and plots against the Crown Prince, but he, without a doubt, has further angered those who already had grievances against him, whether as a result of competing claims to power, different political priorities, old family grudges, or condescension towards a young prince who surpassed many older pretenders with his quick rise to prominence. Alwaleed bin Talal, the son of the Soviet-sympathizing “Red Prince”, who is known for funding interfaith efforts in the West but also for his financial schemes, was a backer and promoter of Jamal Khashoggi, as was Turki al-Faisal, the former Chief of Intelligence, who has strong contacts with Western intelligence agencies, especially the US, UK, and Germany. Turki al-Faisal was not imprisoned during the probe, but Alwaleed was placed under arrest. The famous former Ambassador Bandar bin Sultan, whose daughter is the new Saudi Ambassador to the United States and whose son is the Ambassador to the UK, is alleged to be under a travel ban. He, too, was a Washington insider, who once was a press favorite and feed information to US intelligence agencies.
The backers of former Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef—who was surrounded by Muslim Brotherhood supporters, such as the Governor of Mekka (Turki al-Faisal’s half-brother, Khalid al-Faisal)—are using the grievances of those implicated in the corruption probe who lost their money, freedom, and/or dignity to undermine the Crown Prince, going so far as to align with Turkish, Qatari, Muslim Brotherhood, and Western intelligence actors with an interest in weakening, extorting, or displacing the Crown Prince with someone more pliable, such as bin Nayef or another familiar candidate.
All these actors knew they could not act directly in a palace coup against Mohammed bin Salman as he has managed to consolidate the support of the National Guard and other security agencies, but the intelligence apparatus within the country could—and given what happened with Khashoggi—very likely was infiltrated by those looking to subvert his agenda—and who, via the likes of Turki and Bandar—could have worked with their old Western contacts and counterparts to pursue that common goal. None of that is spoken of in public in Saudi Arabia, particularly to foreigners—and yet, without understanding the extent of penetration of Western institutions by the enemies of the Crown Prince, we cannot begin to understand the seriousness of the unfolding situation. Essentially, we have portions of Western intelligence agencies working against the security interests of the United States in having a stable, liberalizing, economically prosperous Saudi Arabia with a leading role in the Middle East. The supposedly independent and private media has been disinforming the public, and taking part in political operations that impact the events both in the United States and abroad. And now it appears that the business community, or at least some individuals such as Jeff Bezos, can also be coopted by these foreign and domestic interests, in pursuit of the same goals, even if their own grievances and agendas are entirely personal.
According to many Saudis social media giants inflict unequal crackdowns, shadow bans and account suspensions, for those who praise the Crown Prince while anti-Saudi bots and accounts are allowed to replicate and spread propaganda. We are already seeing the impact of such alliances in the Silicon Valley and the tech world, as much as on K Street and in intelligence agencies. These institutions may not need to be paid off by Qatar or Turkey, but they may have domestic political agendas that are in line with the anti-Saudi forces, and although they may not agree on long-term goals, they can certainly be more immediate allies.
Qatar and Muslim Brotherhood activists had a ball with their own media in smearing the Crown Prince, who stood in the way of Qatar’s sponsorship of terrorist groups and Islamists in the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and even in the United States, and who expelled Muslim Brotherhood ideologues from their positions in the mosques inside KSA. Iran lobbyists and former Obama officials, who were threatened by Saudi Arabia’s opposition to the nuclear deal and Iran’s assorted regional proxies, too, had a hand in promoting the anti-Crown Prince narrative, which soon became an expertly organized and coordinated media and political campaign, with the same type of language describing Mohammed bin Salman appearing in multiple, otherwise divergent outlets and channels.
It helped that the PR campaign concerning his role was superficial and it took only a rumor to besmirch a pristine image. The Crown Prince was described only in terms of his own image as a young dynamic reformist leader, but his substantive accomplishments inside the Kingdom have not been explored in depth, particularly in the period leading up to Khashoggi’s demise. Whatever positive impression he made on the Western public was easily destroyed by the very first scandal and rumors.
The media was a willing partner to all of these interests in part and parcel because they, too, viewed the Crown Prince as a disruptive force that threatened a comfortable status quo. Many of the media were connect to the “Old Guard” and benefited both financially and in terms of social status from those relationships. Mohammed bin Salman’s focus on internal reforms and reduction of media related expenditures upstaged their access, their influence, and supposed expertise on Saudi Arabia, which consisted ultimately of the leaked crumbs of information from the country’s intelligence officials. Ultimately, none of the smear attacks against Mohammed bin Salman were about human rights, Saudi Arabia’s role, or anything other than bringing down a political leader that stood in the way of power and influence.
Qatar’s economic and political interests in distancing US from KSA and becoming the primary investor and counterpart played their part, for sure. Muslim Brotherhood saw this as an opportunity to promote their own ideology, particularly if their adversary was weakened and his credibility suffered. The lack of interest in the human side of the Saudi story was transparent and obvious: there was no real attempt by the Western scolds to engage with the Saudis and provide opportunities for professional networking or to volunteer their skills in a variety of productive ways, any of which could have had practical utility towards making Vision 2030 easier to achieve. Many Westerners did not necessarily share in all of Qatar’s, Turkey’s, the Old Guard’s, or Obama’s political agendas, were nevertheless otherwise threatened by the possibility of Saudi Arabia rising, developing its own industries, and assuming independent leadership in the region.
For that reason, even the defense sector that benefited the most from deals with Saudi Arabia, did not lean on Congress particularly hard to ensure that the relationship endured, but just enough to get these deals to pass. Universities, tech companies, and assorted would be cultural and business counterparts that ultimately abandoned Saudi Arabia, may not have had a specific anti-Saudi agenda to begin with, but ultimately yielded to the increasingly radical left movement in US institutions and its partnership with both Sunni and Shi’a Islamists.
At the end of the day, Mohammed bin Salman found himself isolated not because he did anything worse than any other leader in the region, or the world, but because he is not a convenient presence for anyone who does not wish to see Saudi Arabia to become a powerful and modern country, or who is opposed to the reforms—cultural, and religious, as much as political and economics. Thus assorted radicals, Islamists, leftists, self-interested Iran stooges, and corrupt media and institutional apparatchiks made a strange alliance, all focused not on building bridges or overcoming any specific issues or making either Saudi Arabia or the West better places, but rather on bringing down the one person who stood in their way to full control of institutions, narratives, minds, and self-enrichment. Islamists, in the past, had colluded with the media and assorted social institutions and felt comfortable in that alliance.
Mohammed bin Salman ruined the party—and what better way to pay him back for these political operatives who imagined themselves to be central to journalism and the gatekeepers of truth and morality than by humiliating him where he should have been reaping success and destroying every potential for anything positive? They took advantage of existing vulnerabilities in Arab culture & media and in Western polarization and increasing lack of critical thinking, and sold everyone a dark fairy tale that too many people with too many interests were all too ready to swallow. Ultimately, the only way to overcome these issues, to repair the Crown Prince’s reputation in the West, and to expose this unholy alliance seeking to undermine him, is by working to shift the perspective of the West towards KSA from viewing it as a “necessary evil” or an inconvenient ally to understanding that there is a lot of good will, and genuine interest, in deepening cooperation and collaboration.
Eventually, even the internally focused Crown Prince started to wise up and take measures to protect his own reputation from these attacks.
What are the Options for Shutting Down These Attacks and to Prevent Further Reputational Damage?
As Dr. Najat Al Saeed explains, Mohammed bin Salman, in his recent visit to the UAE, inaugurated a joint KSA-UAE Committee to Combat Character Assassination. The idea is to counter psychological/information warfare against the leaders of these countries by various forces. However, so far, there is no evidence that the Committee has been able to produce anything of value. The response from the Embassy to this latest attack has been extremely mild and did not yet shut down this meritless discussion. If anything, it invited further leaks by Bezos. For now, Bezos is acting like he has nothing to fear. He has calculated the risk of engaging in likely defamatory tactics, and having seen how paralyzed the Saudis get in the wake of such extremely bad publicity, decided that he is better off taking his chances, since the Kingdom will not wish to dignify his below-the-belt tactics with a substantive strategic response.
If Mohammed bin Salman wishes to put an end to this resource-draining, distracting, and needless damaging bullying smear campaign, he should pursue an active, forward-looking strategy aimed at both preventing and shutting down these disinformation campaigns at the root, before they take on a life of their own. The strategy should include at least four major prongs:
Legal—it should be legally costly to engage in any sort of deliberate defamation, especially where the allegations are likely to be proven false. Bezos’ ill intent and the extent of reputational damage may be the easiest elements to prove here; even if there is ultimately a settlement of some sort, KSA should make it clear that there will be a legal pushback and that Bezos himself will be embarrassed and lose credibility in the process.
PR—Saudis should not be waiting for the events to resolve
themselves. Left to their own devices, the Crown Prince’s enemies will continue
searching for new, additional angles of attack. Saudis should identify strong
spokespeople not afraid of engaging in deliberative and strategic
confrontations, and have them respond to these attacks, attend panel
discussions, make frequent appearances on TV, and be fairly assertive in
combating these allegations before the public. Such spokespeople should be well
prepared to keep calm, and to understand the Western mentality. At the same
time, they should not forget about the positive aspects of public outreach and
communication, and be able to engage with the public itself, to explain the
situation, to introduce the people to the country in a positive way that makes
it easy to examine its position, and to focus on relevant issues, not just what
feels like “fun” to the insiders (i.e. talk about Saudi accomplishments in
hosting Western-style events, which have no bearing on these attacks or most
Furthermore, the media has to be held accountable for failure to do due diligence, but more importantly based on emerging evidence of collusion by various outlets in support of foreign interests and with clear agendas to convey false narratives and to inflict reputational damage on Mohammed bin Salman as a person, and on the Kingdom. Recently, CNN was forced to settle with an American high school student Nick Sandmann, after painting him in a false light and demonizing him for his alleged role in the March of the Living. The standard of proof of defamation by the media is substantially higher for a public figure, but nevertheless not impossible to meet, at least to the extent of sending a strong message that such campaigns are damaging to the public confidence in journalism and destructive to the United States, as much as to Saudi Arabia.
The media has been able to use a few cases of disgruntled activists to play on public sympathies and proclivity for bleeding heart Americans and anti-Saudi bigots to favor anyone who appears to be acting in pursuit of “democracy”. But if the events of the Arab Spring have taught anyone anything, it is to be skeptical of the claims made by such “do-gooders” and to vet carefully both the claimants and their agendas. Saudis can play an invaluable role as partners to the United States in educating the public about fallacious arguments, deceptive organizations, and doublespeak narratives. That means, however, that they can no longer afford the luxury of isolating themselves and refusing to take an active social role.
Cybersecurity—Saudis should invest into this sector, first by hiring the best in the business from the West, and second by having them train young Saudis (including the top echelons of the government) in secure communications and best practices. For the instant crisis, they should hire independent forensics experts to examine the accounts in question and not rely on Bezos to make their case for them. As far as Bezos is concerned, truth doesn’t matter. The Saudis are already a step behind, but finding out exactly what happened will help them immensely.
Information Warfare—the Saudis should understand that they
cannot ignore the crisis into dissolving as after over two years of the
tensions with Qatar, Turkey, Muslim Brotherhood, assorted infiltrators of the
Western intelligence agencies, and others, it is obvious that they are invested
in having the Saudis in general, and Mohammed bin Salman specifically, fail.
They should, therefore, invest into media mechanisms that could win public
hearts and minds, as well as identify the vulnerabilities of their enemies’ and
hit at them.
For instance, Amazon’s poor information security is an opportunity for some great billboards in Times Square outlining how Bezos’ poor practices endanger millions of users, and also to develop Saudi or Saudi & Western joint ventures, alternatives to Amazon that are better, more responsive to individual needs, and are more secure. Amazon is a great service, but is not beyond competition and is certainly not too big to fail if its founder is more invested in fighting wars on behalf of foreign regimes than in ensuring cyber security for his customers.
Most importantly, the Saudis should remind the public that the burden is on the accuser—in this case, Jeff Bezos—to prove his claims. Allegations should not be given the weight of evidence to be used as weapons to discredit, smear, and destroy reputations even of individuals in positions of wealth and power, such as Mohammed bin Salman. His position in life does not nullify his basic human right to be treated with justice and not to have his life destroyed by rumors, hearsay, and malicious campaigns.
A More Diverse Force: The Need for Diversity in the U.S. Intelligence Community
As part of a hiring initiative meant to attract new and diverse hires, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) released a new recruitment video in March of 2021. The video featured a Hispanic female discussing her background and time in the CIA, as well as why she chose to serve her country. She says at one point, “I’m a woman of color. I am a mom. I am a cis-gender millennial who’s been diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder…I did not sneak into CIA. My employment was not and is not the result of a fluke or a slip through the cracks. I earned my way in, and I earned my way up the ranks of this organization”.
The video showed a woman who cares for her family, cares for her country, and desires to see a difference be made in the world. However, some took issue with the advert though, though these criticisms came over a month after the video first was published and made available to the public.
In a tweet, the Republican Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, said, “If you’re a Chinese communist, or an Iranian Mullah, or Kim Jong Un…would this scare you? We’ve come a long way from Jason Bourne”. Many criticized Cruz for his usage of Jason Bourne, a fictional CIA Paramilitary Operations Officer, yet he took to Twitter once again to clarify, saying, “My point is that CIA agents should be bad-asses—not woke, fragile flowers needing safe spaces”.
Donald Trump, Jr. tweeted “China & Russia are laughing their asses off watching CIA go full woke…If you think about it, wokeness is the kind of twisted PSYOP a spy agency would invent to destroy a country from the inside out”. Others, including popular conservative commentators like Dinesh D’Souza and Meghan McCain, also criticized the ad calling a “joke” or “insane” while others went as far to say that the CIA was “actively looking to recruit the most immodest, narcissistic, grotesquely self-serving people in the world”.
Criticism towards the ad did not purely come from the Conservative, rightist personalities either, but also members of the left. Left-leaning publications such as The Intercept and Jezebel both critiqued the ad. It seems that, from all sectors of American public and political life, this advert and total tactic was heavily derided; from members of the left, it was cringey and irrespective of the agency’s long and controversial history while, from members of the right, it was ineffective national security and intelligence policy.
However, what many seem to be forgetting is that diversity within the intelligence world is an extremely important factor in creating effective and accurate foreign policy and in gaining the most up to date and accurate intelligence.
Intelligence analysis is probably the most important part of the Intelligence Cycle and holds just as much, if not more, importance as the end result, the intelligence estimate or packet. To put it simply, if the analysis is corrupted in some way, shape, or form by either the analyst’s personal views or tainted by poorly verified intelligence, then the action taken based upon this intelligence could result in missteps or negative affects to U.S. policymakers, military units, or regions in which the intelligence affects. Throughout history, there are an abundance of examples in which intelligence analysts have misinterpreted situations due to their own biases about a nation, political ideology, or have been selected specifically to sort through intelligence in order to back up a preconceived opinion.
One of the best examples in showing how analysts’ personal views, both conscious and subconscious, can affect their overall analysis is the 1954 coup d’état of Guatemalan President Jacobo Árbenz.
The coup, which was given the CIA codename Operation PBSUCCESS, was a mission in which the U.S. government, via the CIA and U.S. State Department, engaged in fomenting a coup to remove Árbenz, the leftist president who had approved of agrarian reforms within Guatemala. To justify an invasion, members of the State Department and CIA tried to link Árbenz to Guatemalan communists, yet this proved very difficult as there was “no evidence that Arbenz himself was anything more than a European-style democratic socialist”. A CIA paper, published two months before the coup, also, “did not cite any direct contact between Guatemalan Communists and Moscow. The paper offered ideology, not facts…”.
A master’s thesis written by a student at West Virginia University extensively and exclusively covers the CIA’s decision making process, detailing how, “CIA reports from the early 1950s also demonstrated this fear [of Communism]… The “red scare,” in essence, affected nearly all Americans. Many in the Eisenhower government also felt that Moscow had a nefarious hidden hand and controlled communist sympathizers around the globe,” while also noting that the, “ONI [Office of Naval Intelligence] did not feel that CIA had valid reasons or enough sources to reach the conclusion it did regarding Soviet intentions in Latin America”. The heightened fears of Communism and the Soviet Union that permeated the minds of analysts within the State Department and CIA (as well as the desires by some to ensure the survival of the United Fruit Company in the country) resulted in intelligence that was skewed to believing that the Guatemalan government was embracing Communism, when, even according to the CIA’s own histories, was baseless.
Based upon this example, as one can see, the intelligence provided to the U.S. government was based upon analyst biases and did not accurately reflect how the Guatemalan government under Árbenz operated nor how entrenched the Communists were in political life. The fear of Communism overwhelmed the amount of solid and fact-based analysis, resulting in an invasion that removed a democratically elected president.
This coup eventually resulted in the emplacement of a right-wing, military government, which would rule until 1996, overseeing a brutal civil war complete with death squads, acts of genocide committed by presidential administrations, political assassinations, and a drastic increase in governmental corruption. Members of the CIA who were involved in the operation too regretted their actions and acknowledged that the outcome did not benefit Guatemala, the U.S., or Latin America. Operation PBSUCCESS did not bring about a U.S.-friendly democracy, but a U.S.-friendly military dictatorship that engaged in war crimes and severely destabilized the entire country. The failure of this operation to bring about a democracy and U.S. intervention in the country in the first place was, in my own view and examination, based upon biased analyses by the CIA which promoted the view that Guatemala was becoming sympathetic to Communists and the operation itself shows just how important intelligence analysis is.
Not only is analysis an incredibly important tool within the intelligence cycle as a whole, but the analyst themselves are highly important. The analysis is only as good as the analyst and if the analyst is biased, limited in their outlook or worldview, or come from a sole section of society, then the analysis will reflect those beliefs. Most of the analysts involved in the Guatemalan operation were white and male, most likely coming from middle-class backgrounds and either having military service or Ivy League education or both. These beliefs and hiring processes which exclude persons beyond the majority of America’s populace can significantly hinder an agency and promote a poor world outlook. The majority of persons in countries in which the U.S. is involved, thinking of becoming involved, or are creating analyses in anticipation of potential foreign policies are not white or male nor from wealthy societies; they are, most often than not, of an extremely different mindset than many Americans, live in poverty or close to poverty, and have an immensely different culture. While the CIA has made some headway in this area, retired CIA case officers and analysts have made claims that the CIA (and the Intelligence Community as a whole) are severely underperforming and not effectively recruiting towards people from outside of that select pool.
Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, Jr.’s comments about the CIA lowering their standards and fostering an environment in which the CIA now is ineffective at creating intelligence or defending the United States from foreign threats (not being “badass” enough) is nonsensical. If anything, the inclusion of persons who are not white or male, who have experience outside of the military, who are knowledgeable on issues beyond military, intelligence, and national defense/security makes for a more well-rounded force and an agency more effective at analyzing collected intelligence, crafting accurate and informed recommendations, and allowing past mistakes, the misreading of important political events, to take hold. Including strong, analytical persons from more minority backgrounds into the national security framework will perform wonders for American intelligence analysis and in making influential policy decisions.
To quote Marc Polymeropoulos, a retired CIA officer, “Diversity is an operational advantage. Simple as that. I want case officers who look like the UN”.
Women Maoists (Naxalbari)
Every now and then, Indian newspapers flash news about Maoist insurgents, including women being killed. They usually avoid mentioning how many soldiers were killed in encounters, whether fake or genuine. Here is a glimpse of such news: A woman fighter, along with a male c-fighter, was killed in a clash with government forces in Odisha’s Malkagiri district (Press Trust of India, December 14, 2020).
In another incident, a woman Maoist was killed in an encounter with India’s security forces in Sukma district of Chhatisgarh (PTI, October 13, 2010). A woman Maoist was killed near Anrapali forest (Visakhapatnam, Andhrapradesh). And, another woman Maoist, carrying Rs. 16 lac reward on her head was killed in Gadchiroli district of Maharashtra.
Sometimes there are pitched battles between the Indian forces and the Maoists, including women. For instance, there was a head-on confrontation between a Maoist group and government forces of over 1500 “jawan”, equipped with state-of-the-art weapons and helicopters at the Bijapur-Sukma border. Sans air power, the Maoists, armed only with machine guns, gunned down 22 soldiers belonging to Central Reserve Police Force, Commando Battalions for Resolute Action (Cobra), and Bastariya Battalion of the Central Reserve Police.
Why do women join the Maoist Movement?
They find the Maoist narrative of emancipation attractive. . Not only the low-caste women but also the high-caste ones joined the Maoist ranks in droves. About 30 to 40 per cent of combatants are Maoists. The status of women in the Indian society is no better than that of slaves. They are not supposed to form an opinion or dare express it. Even the high-caste women are supposed to be reticent and coy. They are tutored to be housewives confined to quadrilateral of their homes, rear children, and do household chores. The Maoist ideology ingrained the sense of empowerment in them. The Maoist manifesto teems with such words as “mahila sasahktikaran” (women’s empowerment), “raise their voices” (awash uthaunne), “get their voices represented” (mahilako awaj ko pratinidithyo) and “understand women’s grief” (mahila ko dukka bhujnne).
The Maoist struggle is commonly known as “the people’s war”. The “war” aims at abolishing the feudal system, and creating a democratic egalitarian society. The bulwark of the Maoists is rural population, lower castes and women. Women and men of all castes, classes, ethnic backgrounds and education levels joined the movement.
The Maoist has incorporated women’s emancipation in their ideological manifesto, actually a “40-point demand-document”. The gender equality is enshrined in points 19, 20 and 21, mentioned heretofore:
“19. Patriarchal exploitation and discrimination against women should be stopped, girls should be allowed to access paternal property as their brothers.
20. All racial exploitation and suppression should be stopped. Where ethnic communities are in the majority, they should be allowed to form their own autonomous governments.”
The Maoist proved their heart-felt commitment to the manifesto by punishing rapists, wresting back the usurped land of single women, penalising men for polygamy, and prohibiting the sale of liquor as drunken men more often beat the women. Jan adalats (“people’s courts”) ferociously uphold women’s rights on issues of social and domestic violence.
Women were given political or combat position on the basis of merit. Untouchability and gender discrimination has been abolished. The points 19, 20 and 21 of the Maoist manifesto relating to women stress the need to transform state and customary laws to redress gender inequality at all levels.
In 2002, in recognition of their female constituency, the Maoists introduced the so-called “prachanda path,” creating a women’s department in the Central Committee. In several cases, it is the women who slay the incorrigible feudal tyrants. The women realise that they are “agents of change” who have to fight out repression in all its manifestations. The women have become politically aware that they have the right make decisions about their marriages, children’s education, and other everyday gender needs.
Indian police admit it was the women fighters who were in the vanguard of a deadly attack in Chhattisgarh, where 24 people, including some top politicians, were killed.
Because of its liberal manifesto, the insurgency has spread to 11 states, with Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Odisha as epicenters. It has become entrenched in all central and eastern Indian states, often referred to as the “Red Corridor.
Having failed to subdue the Maoists, the government occasionally resorts to spreading false news about deaths of Maoist leaders. For instance, Hindustan Times dated June 24, 2021 reported that Maoist leader Haribushan, carrying a reward of Rs. 40 lac on his head, had died from COVID19. Her wife rebutted the news (Parveen Kumar Bandari Hans News Service October 5, 2021). “More than 16 senior and middle level level communist leaders have died in the last couple of months due to COVID19…Two senior most leaders of Bastar Ganga, including Dandakaryana Special Zone Committee members Ganga and Sobhroi have died due to infection in the last couple of months”.
Sympathy with Naxals is an offence
In the Bhim Koregaon planted-letters case, several intellectuals and rights activists including Navalakha were declared “traitors” by the Indian government. They were even accused of having links with Kashmiri militants. Fake letters were inputted into their computers. They were even accused of being Pakistan’s intelligence agencies agents through Ghulam Nabi Fai, a US-based Kashmiri leader. Fei has served two-year imprisonment in the USA for having illegally received funds from the inter-services intelligence of Pakistan.
The Maoist are trying to disseminate their message to urban areas also. They understand that the minorities are fed up with the regressive caste system. The rebels want to radicalise youngsters and already have carved out a strong network in premier universities of Delhi and Kolkata. The Maoist want to create an urban militia to fight the oppressive enforcement machinery of the states and Indian Union. They are believed to have infiltrated the government intelligence machinery to stay abreact of government’s tactics.
The Maoists make no bones about their plan to set up a “coordination network among like-minded outfits in India, Bangladesh and Nepal. They want unhindered movement of left-wing extremists in these territories to exchange arms, ammunition and information”. To counter the Maoist strategy, India rushed its diplomats to capitals of neighbouring countries to plug up the porous border and obstruct the insurgents’ free movement.
In addition, India launched Special teams for simultaneous searches in Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Karnataka at suspected Maoist training centres and hideouts. The effort was counter-productive because India’s national Investigation Agency framed charges against the innocent people.
During searches, the Indian forces were surprised to know that the retired Gorkha soldiers of both British and the Indian Army harbour sympathy for the Maoists.
They trained the Maoists to use fire arms efficiently. Some Maoists demonstrated their alacrity and military sills in planning bank robberies, and extorting ransom from rich businessmen. Besides arms and ammunition snatched from police stations, the Maoists are believed to have amassed over Rs. 5 billion from bank heists. The general impression in people’s minds is that the Indian forces dare not pursue the Maoists in forests. The insurgents pick up places where to ambush the security forces, and make off with booty with impunity.
Salwa Judum (purification hut)
Having failed to arrest momentum of the movement, India organised a private army ofSalwa Judum ledbyMahendra Karma From among the villagers. To boost their morale, they were given honorary rank of “special police officer. “As a workaround, the government sponsored counter-militias and split tribes into those “for” and “against” Maoists. Those willing to fight the Maoists were offered guns, money and honorary police ranks.
The Maoists shot dead Mahendra Karma and several members of the ruling Indian National Congress whose brainchild the Salwa Judum was. It later transpired that the salwa judum had been cobbled up with help of child soldiers recruited under duress or financial allurement. It was involved in gross human rights violations. When People’s Union of Civil Liberties in India brought its atrocities to the Supreme Court’s notice, it declared it illegal in 2011.
Charu Mazumdar started the movement as a “revolutionary opposition” in 1965. The world came to know of it in 1967 when the Beijing Radio reported “peasants’ armed struggle” at Naxalbari (Siliguri division of West Bengal). In July 1972, the police arrested Charu Mazumdar and tortured him to death on the night of July 27-28. The Naxalite ideology has great appeal for marginalized strata (particularly dalit and adivasis) of India’s caste-ridden society. The Naxalites Central Committee’s resolution (1980) visualises creating a base for spreading people’s democratic revolution. It would include : ‘Homogenous contiguous forested area around Bastar Division (since divided into Bastar, Dantewada and Kanker Districts of Chhatisgarh) and adjoining areas of Adilabad, Karimnagar, Khammam, East Godavari Districts of Andhra Pradesh, Chandrapur and Garchehiroli district of Maharastra, Balaghat districts of Madhya Pradesh, Malkagiri and Koraput districts of Orissa. The Naxalites want to carve out an independent zone extending from Nepal through Bihar and then to the Dandakarnaya region extending up to Tamil Nadu to give them access to the Bay of Bengal as well as the Indian Ocean.
China disrupted Facebook around the world for political and intelligence reasons?
First: The fact that the Chinese child “Wang Zhengyang”, whose picture is circulated globally, and who now lives in the United States of America and not in China
Second: The accusations of Facebook founder “Mark Zuckerberg” against China, and the Chinese defense of deliberately waging a technological war and cyber hacking against the work of American technology companies
Third: Reasonable Chinese and international accusations that Facebook deliberately disrupted its network, coupled with evidence and proof
Fourth: Analyzing the aspects of Chinese benefits and the Chinese political and ethical employment for the disruption of the American “Facebook” network around the world, internally, externally and ideologically
Fifth: The attitude of the Chinese themselves towards the ban by the Chinese authorities and the leaders of the Communist Party of China of the “Facebook” website in their country, according to the Chinese Constitution
Sixth: The relationship between (the crisis of disrupting Facebook and restoring China’s technological prestige and position) between its citizens and the world, and promoting the theory of “the superiority of Chinese technological applications over their American counterparts”
Facebook and its CEO well-known “Mark Zuckerberg” have faced many crises in recent years, which led to his summoning to appear before a “hearing committee in the US Congress”, especially with the rumors of hacking and selling the privacy and data of tens of millions of users of the “Facebook” network and its other applications around the world. Some leaks indicated that “Cambridge Analytica Company” has obtained (the data of more than 50 million users’ accounts on the Facebook social networking site without their knowledge, after concluding a secret deal with the same company for commercial and advertising reasons), which violates the privacy of users. It leads to a violation of their human rights if their data is used inappropriately.
We find that the crisis of disrupting the “Facebook” network and its American applications for several hours, has coincided with many “accusations and conspiracy theories associated with it”, such as:
that the disruption was deliberate, as the global giant “Facebook” tried to erase some evidence, proofs and evidence that condemns the company in one way or another, especially with the (summoning of the US Senate to Mrs.Francis Haugen”, who previously worked in the products department in the location headquarter company of the “Facebook” in 2019, but it submitted its resignation after noticing illegal actions and activities carried out by Facebook and its officials, in order to hear its testimony regarding the “unlawful actions of Facebook”, endangering the interests of the United States of America itself, and condoning the Dangerous toys for children may prompt suicide in order to achieve “material gains” for the company, regardless of any other considerations.
On the other hand, analyzes have begun regarding the Chinese conspiracy theory against “Facebook” and its CEO “Mark Zuckerberg”, in a Chinese attempt to embarrass the United States of America internationally due to the failure of its democratic digital technology system that it is trying to promote around the world, and to confirm the success of “Chinese alternative networking services and applications to its American counterpart” in avoiding these American technological errors, especially after “Downdetector” spotted it.
Notifying that “Down Detector”, its main task is to track (website crashes), and it has received tens of thousands of reports of crashes on (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger) platforms. It was not immediately clear what caused the malfunction that affected the three platforms.
Despite the growing number of theories and comments about China’s involvement in “Facebook hacking and penetrating”, Facebook itself has denied any allegations of being hacked or any evidence that users’ data has been hacked, explaining the reason for the malfunction. All of its services and applications, including: (Instagram and WhatsApp), amid the growth of many (conspiracy theories) that have spread around the world, and the growing intensity of rumors circulating, including a Chinese child “hacker” penetrating the (Facebook) network alone and disabling users’ data.
Because of this, Facebook’s Vice President of Infrastructure “Santosh Janardan” issued a company statement, saying:
“Our engineering teams learned that changes to the settings on the main routers that coordinate traffic between data centers caused problems that disrupted this communication”
Santosh Janardan, as the (Vice President of Facebook Infrastructure Company), denied the responsibility of China or any other parties or even hacking operations behind this malfunction, explaining in a public statement, in which he assured the world and users, that:
“We want to make it clear that there was no malicious activity behind this malfunction, and its main cause was a wrong change of settings on our part, and we also have no evidence that user data was compromised as a result of this malfunction”
Hence, we note the “increasing international criticism of Facebook”, and its ability to avoid and solve those problems that caused (imbalance in the financial markets, stock exchanges and global markets). Accordingly, and to try to understand the whole picture, the Egyptian researcher will try to raise all the problems related to the company “Facebook”, and to respond in practice to the reasons for accusing China in the first place of hacking the network, as follows:
First: The fact that the Chinese child, “Wang Zhengyang”, whose picture is circulated globally, and who now lives in the United States of America and not in China
The Egyptian researcher followed up on the global uproar that aroused when a Chinese child “hacker” penetrated the Facebook site, and caused this global malfunction of Facebook’s search engines and disrupted the activities of the world, but when the Egyptian researcher was searching on the famous Chinese search engine “Baidu” as “Chinese alternative to the global site of Google”, they are constantly considering that “Baidu is a Google site alternative in China”.
We will find a definition of the true identity and personality of the child, completely different from what was circulated globally, according to the following reasons:
Where the “Chinese Baidu website” indicated the identity of the child appearing in the globally circulated image, as a picture of the globally known Chinese hacke “Wang Zhengyang”, who now actually lives in the United States of America to complete his studies and is not in China at all.
The interesting thing for analysis is what the famous Chinese website “Baidu” mentioned that the Chinese child whose image is being circulated globally is called (Wang Zhengyang), and he is (born in 2001), meaning that he is a young man and not a child as various sites around the world claimed, and “his age is now aout 20 years old”, and the most amazing thing for me personally, is that “he is recentely resides in the United States of America and not in China”, whereas (Wang Zhengyang) traveled to study in the United States of America to continue studying his specialization in (computer, programming and information systems).
He also noted the “Chinese Baidu website”, praising the genius of “Wang Zhengyang”, and that he was one of the students in a school in the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau and the Education Committee for the implementation of (Enlightenment Project for Network Security).
We can as well find that the actual appearance of the Chinese child (Wang Zhengyang) for the first time globally at the (Chinese Internet Security Conference), in 2014, and that was the first appearance of the Chinese genius child (Wang Zhengyang), who was only 13 years old, as the youngest hacker across mainland China.
When the Chinese child (Wang Zhengyang) was accused at the time of hacking his school’s website and endangering the privacy of its files and students’ data, the child (Wang Zhengyang) defended those allegations against him himself, accusing him of hacking his school’s website, according to his claim or defense at the time, that:
“He was only meant to help fix his school’s data website to help her and not intentionally harm her”
As the Chinese child (Wang Zhengyang) explained at the time, that:
“The school website he hacked was not for middle school students, but for high school students in the same educational institution”
Perhaps what stopped me analytically is what the child (Wang Zhengyang) confirmed at the time and his emphasis, on:
“He would rather be seen as an ethical computer hacker, and would not use technology to do illegal things”
Hence, the whole matter was orchestrated as previously referred to as a global rumor, it was not determined who (the first cause of its release, regarding the personality and identity of the Chinese child “Wang Zhengyang”), and even more dangerous to me (the reasons and deliberately ignoring his life now in the United States of America itself and not in the China’s capital of Beijing), in which he studied throughout his primary studies.
I think that they are all legitimate questions and inquiries on my part, and the entire world public opinion has the right to understand, and this is the most dangerous point for me, and it should be asked and explained, as follows:
“Why have we all been deceived about the true identity of the Chinese child by deliberately concealing his true age and deliberately concealing as well his whereabouts?”
Second: The accusations of Facebook founder “Mark Zuckerberg” against China, and the Chinese defense of deliberately waging a technological war and cyber hacking against the work of American technology companies
We find that in the context of an attempt by “Facebook Company and its owner and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg” to circumvent the size of the losses that the company suffers periodically, as well as accusing it of many accusations in exchange for achieving financial gains and profits, Mark Zuckerberg’s accusations have been multiplied to China and its alternative technological applications, on the pretext (China’s attempt to impose its laws, systems, values, and communist ideology on the world), and despite the inability of “Facebook Company nor its founder Mark Zuckerberg” to prove the validity of their allegations against China, the Chinese side has begun to respond to “the violations of Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg”. The agreed upon ethical standards, and the most important mutual accusations between the (two sides), which are as follows:
1) It cannot be asserted that China deliberately launched a technological war and cyber hacking against the work of American technology companies, which did not explicitly accuse China in this regard. We find that the most important statement issued by “Mark Zuckerberg”, the founder of Facebook against China, is his explicit accusation of it, saying:
“Beijing wants to impose its values on us, and we will not allow another country to impose special laws on us on the Internet”
2) The second reference against China also comes, regarding what Mark Zuckerberg referred to, as the CEO of “Facebook”, and his other frank accusation directed at China, saying:
“Six out of 10 social media sites that exist today are mainly Chinese, and Beijing is trying to impose its values on us, and we cannot allow another country to impose laws on the Internet”
3) The first real confrontation between “Mark Zuckerberg” against China, is his decision to establish (a committee to monitor and control the movements of Chinese social networks), and this team can take the final decision without the intervention of any other official. Here, “Mark Zuckerberg” made sharp accusations against China, and indirect hints that it was “the reason behind calling him for an urgent hearing in the US Congress”, and that was several months ago, for what he rumored about him from “politicizing the content and spreading chaos and violence”.
4) The famous American surveillance website “whois.domaintools”, as a site that specializes in monitoring domains and their owners, especially on Facebook, has published a promotional announcement, saying that:
“The domain of facebook.com is for sale, due to its exposure to several previous cyber attacks”
5) We find that China has repeatedly been subjected to fierce attacks by American officials and politicians via Facebook and China’s denunciation of this, most notably (the emergence of the Coronavirus vaccinations and the intimidation of receiving Chinese vaccines), and China accused “Mark Zuckerberg” of causing a global panic, and of aiding preventing people from getting the right vaccine.
6) Caving in to Chinese pressure, “Mark Zuckerberg” was forced in mid-March 2021 to appear, confirming on his Facebook page his support for the global vaccination campaign and helped spread vaccine awareness ads, but the attack continued on Facebook, as a result of allowing commentators, comments and addresses to promote theories and comments that prevent people from receiving the vaccine, especially the Chinese. Hence, we understand “the tense relationship between Facebook and its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, and China”, especially during the recent period.
Through the previous analysis of the details of the relationship between Facebook and China, we find that the matter has gone beyond the line of technological competition to the exchange of accusations against each other, especially with what has been proven even within the American interior itself, that Facebook and its founder, “Mark Zuckerberg” is trying to play political roles and put (its gains profits and material above the public interest, as it overlooks the many damages caused by the site to its users and children), as well as proving a number of users of the “Instagram” application owned by the same company that the company deliberately sells their data and violates their privacy for purposes and interests that are purely material and not ethical. Hence, China is defending that:
“Our Chinese local network of applications to preserve the values, morals, and cohesion of Chinese society itself in the face of the corruption of Facebook and its operators in the United States of America”
Third: Reasonable Chinese and international accusations that Facebook deliberately disrupted its network, coupled with evidence and proof
We find that after the failure of the Facebook network service, and the rest of the other applications associated with it, the logical question in China and the world has become:
“Did Facebook intentionally disrupt its servers, software, and the scope of its networks around the world to hide a scandal or secrets that shook the image of the United States of America globally?”
We note here that a number of Chinese accusations against the company “Facebook“, which adopts a number of logical reasons, deliberately in charge of the famous network – perhaps based on US government pressures, deliberately disabling the network for several hours, to hide secrets, and was based mainly on the Chinese and globally on a number of Among the reasons behind this sudden malfunction of the “Facebook” network, including:
The Facebook company has all the adequate measures to secure its servers, software, and its giant international network from any accidental accidents, hacks, or various and innovative backups in the event of any failure or malfunction.
Facebook’s possession of the best security and technical system in the whole world, and perhaps what it has is not owned by major governments and countries, and this brings us to the same most dangerous question, related to the “conspiracy theory”, which is:
“Did “Facebook” deliberately disrupt its servers, software and network globally for several hours?”
Here, logical reasons related to the international reputation of the United States of America were actually linked, which prompted Facebook and those responsible for it to disable the network, perhaps (to erase those evidence and evidence, which condemns the United States of America), and the owner of the American Facebook, “Mark Zuckerberg”, and in conjunction with events and events Interestingly and logically linked to the sudden downfall of Facebook, such as:
(Pandora’s Leaks, the testimony of Francis Haugen)
The “Pandora Documents leak”, is one of the most important legal and political battles in the world, which Facebook is trying to contain immorally, according to the list of accusations delegated to it, which is a (leakage of a huge number of documents containing many financial secrets that may make scandals and provide financial crimes to hundreds of world leaders, politicians, billionaires and celebrities).
The accusations came to the Facebook network and its founder, “Mark Zuckerberg”, of deliberately disabling the network’s servers and data for several hours to erase and remove all documents and prices contained in documents and leaks in the name of “Pandora’s Reveal”, which is a leak of nearly 12 million documents that reveals (Fortune secrecy, tax evasion, money laundering by some world leaders and wealthy people).
Therefore, accusations have been leveled by China and a large number of well-known journalists around the world, including more than 600 journalists in 117 countries, who began searching for a large number of sensitive files from more than 14 sources for several months to reveal (major global corruption cases affecting the most important global leaders, which Facebook is trying to prevent in various ways in order to preserve Washington’s interests with the countries of the world) and to achieve material gains for the company at the same time.
The data was obtained by the (International Consortium of Investigative Journalists), based in Washington DC, known as its consortium name, is: “ICIJ”
The accusations against “Facebook company deliberately disrupting its work for several hours around the world” confirm that he was working with more than (140 media organizations in the largest global investigation of its kind ever in the world, but the quality of the documents collected and found were with political and international nature, and lead to political and international crises for Washington and its allies), so it became necessary for the “Facebook” network to get rid of it completely, so it came (deliberately disrupting the network for several hours for purely political and intelligence purposes to carry out this task, and to erase those dangerous and sensitive documents, so that no access is reached and consequently embarrassing Washington with its allies around the world), and shaking the world’s confidence in the United States of America.
On the other hand, “Facebook’s fear of publishing data, extracts or clips from the testimony of the former employee of the company, Ms. Francis Haugen against the company and its officials, is supported by documents and documents about the nature of the violations and penetrations of the Facebook network globally”. And here we mean the testimony of “Mrs. Francis Haugen”, an employee who worked as a former manager in the products department in the “Facebook” company since 2019, to help address the problem of election interference through social media, especially after (several accusations of the Russian side of interfering in the final results of the US Presidential elections), in favor of former US President “Donald Trump”.
Perhaps the most dangerous thing that “Mrs. Frances Haugen” said and tried to silence her and stop her and get rid of her by threatening her, is that American policy makers and legislators are encouraging the “Facebook and its owner Mark Zuckerberg” network to disrespect its users and violate, exploit, hack and sell their privacy for purely material purposes, as well as On the adoption by those in charge of “Facebook” of a polluted agenda, as it incites inhuman standards for the following taboo:
(Spreading hatred, racial discrimination between whites and blacks and all other minorities, fueling political and religious disputes and conflicts to achieve material gains, not caring about the health and security of users, especially children, by publishing games that encourage suicide in exchange for huge financial gains)
Based on the testimony of “Mrs. Francis Haugin”, the position of the Chinese President, Comrade “Xi Jinping”, came to issue of “laws that obligate young people to abide by the male dress and not to mix identities, and to prevent the broadcast of any content in the Chinese media in which men imitate women”, with the publicly affirmation of the Chinese authorities and leaders the Communist Party of China “CPC” stated the need to work on:
“Limiting the scope of work and spread of technology companies producing children’s electronic games and applications to reduce them and curb their growth and increasing influence”
Hence, since November 2020, the Chinese authorities have started to adopt a strict campaign throughout the country, based and aimed primarily at “protecting children, youth and school students from falling into the trap of addiction to games and applications at the expense of their health and their relationships with the entire community”.
And based on the evidence, evidence and previous evidence that confirms (the Facebook company intentionally disrupts its work to erase the evidence of its international condemnation). Hence, we find, that with the (increasing of American and Western criticism to the Chinese campaign directed against American and mainly Western technology companies, which produce children’s toys), especially those that encourage suicide, such as: (Facebook films for children), policy makers in the Communist Party of China tried to assert that:
“Germany, as a successful Western model, has adopted the same policies to protect its children and children. Despite the progress of industry and modern technologies and technology, Germany has restricted the work of children’s toy companies, with Chinese leaders confirming that Germany has succeeded in industry, production and progress, not consumption and games”
Fourth: Analyzing the aspects of Chinese benefits and the Chinese political and ethical employment for the disruption of the American “Facebook” network around the world, internally, externally and ideologically
The malfunction of Facebook and its various applications, such as: “WhatsApp, Instagram, Messenger”, shows the extent of American hegemony over very important tools in the era of the digital economy, to extend American influence and control over the world, and in return, China has distanced itself from these (Digital chaos) by banning these American and Western applications and providing (local Chinese alternatives of technology that fits the nature and values of Chinese society and protects its youth and children), through:
My accurate analysis as an expert in Chinese Politics for (the great Chinese benefits from the disruption of Facebook as a giant of American technology around the world, and the attempt to use the matter politically, ideologically and values to defend its interests), thus hitting and offending the reputation of American social networks, as well as their inability to confronting the emergency and most importantly its violations of the rights of the child, family and human being.
This may also come in the field and scope of the work of “Chinese digital technology propaganda in the face of the alliance of digital technological democracies against it, led by Washington with its allies, such as: Britain and Australia in the first place”, especially after the United States of America banned the Chinese technology giant of (Huawei company for technology), which adopts China’s plan on The world, especially in developing and African countries, to spread (the fifth generation services “G5″ for Chinese digital technology).
China will also try to improve the reputation of its technology companies globally, especially after the arrest (the Chinese financial director of Huawei in Canada and her arrest and then recently sentenced on charges of belonging to a banned group, as well as other financial charges related to the work of the Chinese company Huawei itself), which increased the tensions of the relations between China and the United States, especially with China accusing Washington of pushing its Canadian allies to obstruct its interests around the world.
China was able to use the disruption of American social networks to make (technological ideological propaganda for itself, by proving it with tangible evidence, that social networks in China did not suffer any glitch during the Facebook stoppage), regarding the work of applications for mobile phones in China.
Therefore, Chinese social networks, such as: “Weibo, WeChat, Kyukyo, Youku, Doyen”… etc., which were working normally during a period of downtime and disruption of all American versions of the web and its applications, especially those linked to the American Facebook network, the Chinese ideological propaganda focused mainly on the inside, stating that:
“The social networks in China did not suffer any malfunctions during the failure of their American counterparts”
In this context, the Chinese media tried to emphasize (the good management of the ruling Communist Party authorities of the country, especially with the Chinese authorities banning American technological services, such as: Facebook and its applications inside China), which are: “Instagram, Twitter, and WhatsApp”, and others. As well as (China bans the work of some other Western technology companies that have been proven to violate Chinese laws), and therefore, the Chinese citizen was not affected by any noticeable stop, with his use and use of Chinese applications alternative to the American, and from here (no one practically noticed that any of the Chinese applications stopped working within the whole mainland of China during the period of downtime and disruption of Facebook and its various applications around the world).
Through this analysis, we understand that (China mainly focused its efforts on the inside), certainly that China does not face any similar technical problems, especially with the impact of this interruption of Facebook’s work on the accounts of millions of users around the world, as well as causing problems using the “Oculus platform” for virtual reality, which is also affiliated with “Facebook”, while (China only uses its own technological applications with a global reputation and good value, given that there were no technical problems in it, as well as observing all the ethical standards that its American counterparts neglected).
Fifth: The attitude of the Chinese people themselves towards the ban by the Chinese authorities and the leaders of the Communist Party of China of the “Facebook” website in their country, according to the Chinese Constitution
The ruling Communist Party authorities have tried to conduct (large educational and awareness campaigns for all the Chinese people about the danger of American and Western digital technologies on the identity, national culture and values of the People’s State of China), as the new competition between China and the United States of America and the West is witnessing several accelerating geostrategic balances and radical internal social and political transformations. China has become more capable of changing the image of the world and the relations of competition in it in new unconventional ways, such as: the matter of “Chinese alternative technological applications in the face of Western technologies”.
This alternative proposal for Chinese digital technology, alternative to its American and Western counterparts, enhances the legitimacy and strength of governance and the ruling authorities of the Communist Party in the Chinese state, with their ability to win over the masses and Chinese public opinion with a system of cultural values agreed upon among all the Chinese people with their leaders, authorities and ruling party. Which can be understood, as follows:
The Chinese authorities have reaffirmed the depth of their far-reaching strategic view by blocking a number of American social networking sites, especially “Facebook” in China since 2009, and the Chinese authorities attributed the blocking to (three main reasons), which are:
First: Because (those American social media sites deliberately underestimate the values of China and fail to mention the China’s historical facts), such as deliberately mentioning the necessity of reviving the old revolutions in China and promoting their renewal.
Second: The presence of (gaps in the security and privacy options on Facebook, and its threat to Chinese national security).
Third: The growing criticism against China on the famous search engine website of “Google”, and its intentional publication of “pornographic materials”, which (infiltrate the privacy of children and the Chinese family).
2) The Chinese authorities also blocked the famous American website of “Amazon” for selling books, due to the intention of the “Amazon” website to provoke China despite its warning, by deliberately selling and promoting a book banned from publication in China that talks about revolutions, as if anyone clicks on a website or link of the book is on Amazon from China, the site is completely blocked for at least 15 minutes, which is an attempt by the Chinese state to maintain its security and stability and protect its history and heritage in the face of American and Western absurdity, as China officially defends itself.
3) Hence, (private Chinese applications began to promote themselves, and the Chinese media themselves promoted them, by not disrupting them during the period of downtime and sudden failure in other American digital services), which cost heavy losses in the United States of America approaching 164 thousand dollars, losses per minute, that is, nearly $60 million, which China has not faced.
4) As for the position of the Chinese themselves towards banning Facebook in their country, you find that “Chinaese people keenness to preserve the value system of Chinese society”, considering that American websites, such as: (Facebook, Twitter, Google), and the other applications, as from China’s point of view, they’re looking to the American and Western IT applications may (infect the Chinese value system, as it threatens the culture of the Chinese).
5) According to the Chinese constitution, “the Chinese state itself is morally responsible for protecting its citizens from exposure to Western and American cultural invasion”, and also for closing the door on Western attempts to use these sites to foment internal political unrest against the Chinese state.
6) Hence, we find that China, after the disruption of Facebook and the rest of the other related applications, we can analytically highlightthe (Chinese promotion of the superiority of its digital values and technological model in the face of American and Western applications), and the Chinese affirmation of the validity of its theory to follow a policy called: (Building the Great Firewall Project china)
Or what is officially, known as: “the Golden Cover Project”,or “Golden Shield”.
Which is one of the most important and sensitive Chinese technical projects to monitor the Internet and block the unwanted websites, and it is considered one of (the most advanced Chinese sensitive technical projects in the world).
Based on the understanding of the Chinese technological map and the most important methods and celebrities that China adopts in the face of American and Western digital technologies such as Facebook, as we analyzed it, and from here we find that (the ruling Communist Party authorities in China are trying to take advantage of the rapid technological progress in the mainland of China to change the geostrategic map of the world in a fast way, whose nature has not yet been clear in the face of American hegemony and unilateralism), which is evident to us from the way and mechanism of the Chinese political and ethical employment of the (relationship between the technology and politics and the interaction and mutual influence between them), which represents one of the most important determinants of this new world, and the innovative non-traditional competition trends between China and the USA.
Sixth: The relationship between (the crisis of disrupting Facebook and restoring China’s technological prestige and position) between its citizens and the world, and promoting the theory of “the superiority of Chinese technological applications over their American counterparts”
The researchers, scholars, and the international academic community around the world are witnessing the emergence of new technological and cognitive terms that are all centered around the American-Chinese technological conflict and polarization at the present time in its political form, such as the term of (Techno-Politics).
This new term of “Techno Politics” refers to (the relationship between political and technological affairs in its changing form), in a way that can be applied to the current conflict and competition between China and the United States of America over “fifth generation networks and the United States’ ban on the Chinese company Huawei”, as a result of the struggle over the acquisition of technological applications and their relationship The nature of competition and political polarization between Washington and Beijing, but in terms of digital and technology, which we can apply and understand on the part of China during the crisis of the Facebook disruption, as follows:
The crisis of disruption of Facebook and the rest of the applications associated with it, such as: (WhatsApp, Instagram), and others, has restored China’s technological prestige and position among its citizens, and demonstrated the depth and far-sightedness of the policies of the Communist Party of China, emphasizing that:
“China’s blocking of many American social media sites is not in vain, as the Chinese state sees great importance in “not leaving the personal information of its members in foreign hands that may one day exploit that information, which is our primary task in preserving the Chinese citizen, as one of the important ingredients for maintaining China’s national security”
This also reminds us of a crisis that occurred a few years ago, a crisis occurred between “the American Google company” and China, during which the two parties exchanged accusations that took a political nature, and ended with the consent and agreement of the two parties to transfer the “Google” engine service to the city of “Hong Kong”, where it directs you to Google’s Hong Kong site directly, if you try to open the site in any of the other provinces and provinces of China.
On the other hand, China is trying to promote other Chinese search engines competing with the US, such as: “Baidu”, which was launched by China in 2000, to be the first search engine in the country, and also a strong competitor to the American company “Google”.
We can also recognize the “Youku website” in China, which is the Chinese alternative to “YouTube”, as “Youku” is the most largest and important site that provides the service of uploading and publishing videos on the Internet in China, and the site is characterized by the ability to upload unlimited videos, as it allows users to upload full movies and complete episodes of Chinese, Korean, and American series. And the site as well allows the Chinese people to follow up on many (non-Chinese films and series, as they are accompanied by Chinese subtitles on the screen), outperforming the services of the YouTube American site.
We also find that the “Weibo” site in China, as the Chinese alternative to “Twitter”, which is blocked in China, and the word “Weibo” in Arabic means (small tweets or short posts), and according to the “Weibo site’s statistics”, its Chinese users are daily writing more than 100 million microblogs, outperforming the famous Twitter social networking site.
Here, we also find the “QQ” application in China, with taking into consideration that “QQ”, is considered one of the largest chat programs in China, and an alternative to the famous chat programs, such as: (MSN & Yahoo), which the Chinese do not accept to use.
We also find the “WeChat” applicationor “Weixin” in Chinese, which is the most used application in China for social networking, where the parent company revealed a new report to it, which showed that it has so far more than 400 million active users and they are constantly increasing.
With the intensification of the Chinese accusations against the United States of America, which I consider to be the most violent of all, was the accusation of the Chinese Vice Foreign Minister “Xie Feng” to the United States of America publicly, of “trying to eliminate the Chinese regime”, In text, he said:
“There is a campaign by an entire government and an entire society that is being waged to bring down China”
This was reported by the well-known Chinese newspaper, “China Daily”, during “Ms. Sherman’s visit to Tianjin province in China”, on July 26, 2021, who is considered the most high-level ranking senior official in the American administration of President “Joe Biden” to visit China.
Finally, we find that through the previous comprehensive analysis of the Egyptian researcher to analyze and understand the nature of the work of Chinese technology companies in the face of their American and Western counterparts, we can now accurately understand (the role or employment of the political and value but also the ideology of Chinese and American technology companies and all other digital platforms associated with them to play real and independent geopolitical roles).
Therefore, the talk about (the disruption of the Facebook network around the world, the role of China and the exchange of accusations between all concerned parties is closely linked to national security and its link to digital technology and the giant Chinese digital technology projects globally in the Silicon Valley region), especially with the connection of advanced technology networks and companies at the present time with governments, which applies to “Facebook” and its connection with the US federal government and various political institutions as I mentioned, and also with the association of Chinese companies working in the technology sector with the government, this shows us with evidence (the seriousness of the relationship between digital technology, politics and national security) for both China and the USA in our case.
Hence, what most analytically caught my eye, academically and researchly was (Chinese President Comrade Xi Jinping’s meeting with Apple CEO “Tim Cook”, at rates that exceed his meeting with presidents and leaders in the whole world). This is a confirmation of what I have previously presented in this close connection between the governments of countries and giant technology companies, and even (transcends their borders because of their connection with armies and all national security files around the world, which is almost applicable to the American and Chinese cases and the Chinese alternatives applied to digital technology in the face of American and Western competition, in order to preserve on its national security from any penetration), and this fully proves and confirms our theory about (the relationship between politics, technology and national security, the limits and extensions of influence between each other).
Iran poll contains different messages for Biden and Raisi
“It’s the economy, stupid.” That is the message of a just-published survey of Iranian public opinion. However, the substance of...
The Blazing Revival of Bitcoin: BITO ETF Debuts as the Second-Highest Traded Fund
It seems like bitcoin is as resilient as a relentless pandemic: persistent and refusing to stay down. Not long ago,...
Credit Suisse to pay $475 million to U.S. and U.K. authorities
Credit Suisse Group AG has agreed to pay nearly $475 million to U.S. and U.K authorities, including nearly $100 million...
Gallup: World’s Approval of U.S. Govt. Restored to Obama’s Record High
On October 19th, Gallup issued their “2021 Rating World Leaders” report and finds that “Six months into the first year...
China beats the USA in Artificial Intelligence and international awards
The incoming US Secretary of the Air Force said that China was winning the battle of Artificial Intelligence over the...
Iraq: An Urgent Call for Education Reforms to Ensure Learning for All Children
Learning levels in Iraq are among the lowest in the Middle East & North Africa (MENA) region and are likely...
Breaking The Line of the Israel-Palestine Conflict
The conflict between Israel-Palestine is a prolonged conflict and has become a major problem, especially in the Middle East region....
Africa4 days ago
Analyzing The American Hybrid War on Ethiopia
Energy3 days ago
Gas doom hanging over Ukraine
Intelligence4 days ago
Women Maoists (Naxalbari)
Middle East4 days ago
Safar Barlek of the 21st Century: Erdogan the New Caliph
Middle East3 days ago
Iran unveils new negotiation strategy
Science & Technology2 days ago
U.S. Sanctions Push Huawei to Re-Invent Itself and Look Far into the Future
Middle East3 days ago
Shaping US Middle East policy amidst failing states, failed democratization and increased activism
Americas3 days ago
How terrible the consequences of the Cold War can be