Qatar s Crisis to Where?...

USPA NEWS - In the presence of extremist and armed groups and Washington is different in its positions With neutral and other countries rejecting the policy of severing ties

Qatar's Crisis to Where?, a question that has been raised frequently with the end of the month of Ramadan, which has witnessed since the beginning of the fifth of June the explosion of the crisis.
Qatar's relationship with some Gulf states and Egypt continues with tension day after day, the impact and repercussions of this hot crisis "The biggest diplomatic crisis as described by some" on the Arab region as a whole in the near and long term in the light of the occurrence of explosions from time to time and the presence of extremist groups and armed specifically in the Sinai in northeastern Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq, which is in the final stages of the battle to liberate Mosul from ISIS "Will lead the Arab region to where?", with the continued divergence of positions of the US administration towards this crisis in light of the calls of some foreign countries such as the United Kingdom, Russia and France, with the mediation of Kuwait to dialogue and calm, on the other hand, we find that Turkey and Iran stand by the support of the State of Qatar and oppose the policy of severing relations while Israel stands with the positions of the boycotting countries.

A deep reading and several questions are raised about this crisis with the end of Ramadan under the many hints of some countries boycotting Qatar for the continuation of the crisis for years, I put it on a former member of the US Democratic Party and political analyst, Mehdi Eliefifi.

The Gulf-Gulf crisis
* Historically, there have been tense relations between Qatar and some Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt then come back to calm down and tense, but this time it triggered a major diplomatic crisis by severing ties by land, air and sea with Qatar, after all these long years, analyze why now and in the month of Ramadan this time, especially the policy of severing relations?

What we see now is the accumulation of Qatar's policy towards these countries over the past years of Qatar's intervention in the internal affairs of these countries in addition to supporting what Qatar calls the opposition while the truth is the institutions and groups that use the character of terrorism. Qatar is the first supporter of some of these groups, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and some other groups as in Bahrain, so these facts were accumulated with the emergence of some recordings that proved Qatar's attempt to conspire against some Arab regimes, which led to cooperation between these countries and understanding with the United States in general, S The reaction was then cut off relations on all sides with Qatar, and the result was the timing of the crisis exploded.

* Do you also think that the crisis of severing the relations began since the kidnapping of the Qatari fishermen known in Iraq or after the three summits in Saudi Arabia and the policy of cutting was implemented, or do you think that the policy of severing relations with Qatar has long been studied and implemented now?

The policy of severing relations with Qatar has long been studied. There is an Arab movement, especially from Saudi Arabia, even before the current US president, Donald Trump, assumes power. Saudi Arabia knows how to deal with various American administrations. The Arab countries are dealing with Washington. Some Arab leaders and politicians thought that dealing with the American president leads to solving problems. This is wrong because the United States is a country of institutions. Therefore, Saudi Arabia and its new leaders know how to deal within the corridors of Washington and reach and give decision makers. Evidence for support, even in opinion, for example, America did not play the role of severing relations, but the fact that the US President expressed his opinion on the issue of severing relations and accuses Qatar of being a supporter of terrorism, this work did not come from a vacuum, but from hard work and thoughtful within the corridors of Washington, And the American president to stand in such a position even if the position has no side effects or actual, but just accusing Trump Qatar in his words in this form certainly will lead to what is the situation now.

* Some countries such as Yemen, the government of eastern Libya, Mauritania and unexpected countries such as the Maldives and the Comoros have adopted the approach of boycotting Qatar. Jordan and Djibouti have announced a reduction in diplomatic representation with Qatar, do you see that this approach is a genuine endorsement of the positions of boycotting States or of certain interests?

Politics is usually not an emotional matter, but a matter of calculations that every state leadership calculates according to its interests. The countries that have pursued the policy of cutting have had doubts about Qatar's interventions and have also calculated their relations with other Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE and Egypt. It has another structure that is not simple to be decoded, but always depends on the relations and interests that bind the countries between them in the present and future.


* Do you think the crisis will continue or do you think it will calm down again, especially after Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi recently said in a press interview that the diplomatic crisis with Qatar should not turn into a war?

The crisis with Qatar will not continue for many reasons, including the political movement of Qatar on several axes, first Germany, then Russia with the exception of the Iranian and Turkish action, in addition to the multiple visits of the Qatari Foreign Minister to various European countries and currently in the United States to try to calm the situation, The international community, for example, that the lack of participation of the international community in any Egyptian crisis, we find solutions will be internal solutions Egyptian and sometimes there are no solutions, so there must be another look at this issue, and I think also that the attempt to calm began since the beginning of the crisis andWhat we saw President Trump floundering in accusing Qatar, and two days later he was sending out tweets at his account in Tuttir that he was ready to host the Arab leaders in Washington to calm the crisis. In addition to the confused administration, the US Secretary of State speaks in a manner that the defense minister speaks differently, It should be noted that America has not yet used the veto on this subject.

*After the case of the electronic penetration of the official news agency of Qatar, an investigation was carried out with the support of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation and the British National Anti-Crime Agency to find out who are behind this breakthrough, why did these boycott countries not wait a little to know the circumstances of this issue and the results of the investigation and immediately began the next day of the incident of the break-off severing relations and accusations to Qatar support terrorism?

Those countries did not need to reach the stage of penetration because they knew Qatar's interventions with proofs and evidence. There were discussions between them and with Washington and we saw the reactions after that. In addition, the Arab countries were not reaching this stage. The United States has the status that these institutions do not operate under one umbrella and under the umbrella of the United States. The stream of president, whether Republican or Democrat, so we often find different opinions among them.


* In your opinion, why did the United States blame Russia for the electronic penetration and the results of the investigation are not yet complete?

It is known that there is some kind of tension between the United States and Russia. In particular, people from Russia have already infiltrated certain sensitive bodies in the United States, so it was known that the United States would point fingers at Russia.
* Before the Qatari crisis, some political figures in the Arab and Western region were pointing their fingers at some of the Gulf states that now boycotted Qatar's policy by supporting some extremist organizations and groups, why did not take the subject seriously and an investigation is being conducted on these allegations and accusations, such as what is happening now with Qatar and became the main accusation directed at them as well as Iran?

Some Western countries and the United States have accused some countries of supporting terrorism, such as Saudi Arabia, for example, but they are not just full of evidence, facts and evidence. What happened with Qatar was conclusive evidence, evidence and talks about Qatar's continued support for terrorism.
* Is it possible to happen with Iran, which has an expansion in US sanctions and Turkey, in particular, there are many accusations directed at these two countries to support some extremist and armed groups from cutting off diplomatic relations like what is happening now with Qatar?, And why some of these boycotting countries of Qatar policy accuse Iran and Turkey, which is still dealing with the two countries at all levels, what is the purpose?

The situation in Qatar is different because it has continued at the highest levels and from within the country and in cooperation with some Western parties and some individuals in many Arab regions to support groups, organizations and institutions in a deliberate and high-level that causes interventions and terrorism in many Arab regions, using even children and women. I say in political matters you may understand something outwardly and at home something else for that relationship will continue but everything will be used in time.




* But the three summits were clear and most of the blame was directed at Iran. Why did the summits directly reflect the severing of ties with Qatar, if they supported Iran, and no specific measures were taken against Iran except for the expansion of US sanctions?, And do you think the United States will in the long term resort to a military war with Iran?

The nature of dealing with Iran is different from the nature of dealing with Qatar. In international politics, we must consider the power of the state. Let us be realistic. Iran is a strong country with very broad relations and ties with some European countries and within Washington with its nuclear agreements and other agreements. Iran's relations with Europe and the United States are very different from country relations, and Iran has not yet proven directly involved in events such as overthrowing the regime in Bahrain or assisting in a specific issue within Egypt or Saudi Arabia, but generally the United States and some Arab countries Iran is accused of supporting groups that cause ethnic and sectarian conflicts in some Arab regions. For Qatar, there is strong evidence of its involvement and the voice and image of dealing with Qatar will differ from dealing with Iran. It is also ruled out that there is a military war with Iran, There is no desire in the American corridors to go to war with Iran because it is not the easy country to go to war with it, but the United States can take another form of influence by cooperating with some allies against Iran to mitigate the interference

* Qatar is one of the high-income countries supported by the world's third-largest reserves of natural gas and oil reserves. It is also one of the most advanced Arab countries in the field of human development. Recently, there have been American-Qatari arms deals with Turkish and Iranian support. After all, Cut off relations will affect the long term on a protected and rich state like Qatar?

Qatar has worked hard once the boycott began by communicating with European countries, especially Germany, France, Britain, Russia, and now with the United States to improve its image, and this is what we have seen recently, different opinions within the American administration there is a difference between the US president and the rest of the institutions , There are different claims on the situation of the country can emerge from the US Congress claims and decisions are different from the decisions of the President of the United States, especially Trump is different from the rest of the presidents because he came with a non-political background and enjoy stirring unrest in his tweets by calculating the tension and ultimately lead to excitement ,

But the American administration and through its foreign policy asked the Arab countries to explain to the international community and the public opinion the reasons for this boycott in detail, so what distinguishes the United States from other countries is to demand the facts and to be approved by American law to be applied as a kind of sanctions. These sanctions will continue and the United States supports them in any way because they have not reached the confidence of the US Congress and major American institutions.
* What is your comment on what has been raised recently and how healthy it is that Qatari gas has not been banned from reaching the UAE, on the other hand, everything in all respects has been banned with Qatar?

There may be direct agreements between Qatar and the UAE on gas so that the UAE will not be able to cut off Qatari gas. This has happened with many countries that have relations with Europe, Israel and Egypt on the issue of gas, because there are contracts where policy can not be entered or there will be many sanctions.

* In your opinion, what will happen to the Gulf House represented by the Gulf Cooperation Council after this hot crisis?
I think there will be reforms within the Gulf House represented by the Gulf Cooperation Council through the work and put forward many attempts to change the regime within Qatar.

* Do you think that Qatar will eventually comply with the status quo and accept the conditions imposed on it, including stopping the support of some of the people who have been classified as terrorists, such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood?
Qatar will not comply with the pressures and demands of the Arab countries because it has succeeded in persuading the international community and questioning the possibility of applying sanctions from the European countries and the United States. The Arab countries can boycott Qatar for some time but without international support soon this boycott will end. Qatar can not be underestimated. Moreover, we have not seen any of the major European countries and even the United States support the policy of severing relations. They are mere statements and opinions. I do not think that the boycott will reach Qatar's compliance with the conditions. M Because they tried to use the international community through the right of expression to protect people like al-Qaradawi because they were not rioters and terrorists, they were expressing opinions that were contrary to their countries as a kind of opposition.

Different American attitudes
*The position of the US president, Donald Trump, was clear against the policy of Qatar. On the other hand, there are other American calls to resolve the crisis through dialogue. The result was arming deals with Qatar and staying on the US air base, how do you read this clear and well-known discrepancy about the US administration, especially Trump's volatile positions in the interests of his purely economic mindset?

President Trump's statements and opinions on US policies must be separated because American policies are ultimately drawn from the US Congress and any opinion or decision of the US president, such as what we have seen about immigration, can be stopped by the judiciary. Indeed, the American judiciary has stopped Trump's decision to prevent immigrants, The US Congress could vote by a majority of more than 60%, even the veto is vetoed by the US President. So the final decision in the United States is for the US Congress and its other institutions. Trump did not come from a political background. Personal opinions. These views do not reflect public policies, but express Trump's personal opinion, which may differ with the private members under his administration, as we have seen from different views of the Foreign and Defense Ministers on the Qatari crisis.
* Trump has spoken out against Qatar's policy and accused it of financing extremist groups, including internationally wanted Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist groups. On the other hand, the US administration, even the United Kingdom, refuses to classify the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist groups, as in some countries.Why?

There are other American institutions that believe that all the Arab countries can not be taken. Some of these countries insist that the United States and Britain should classify the Muslim Brotherhood or other institutions as terrorist groups. This is contrary to the American reality, because on any basis, A legal basis is presented to the US Congress, so no group is classified as a terrorist group simply because it is an opinion from Egypt, Saudi Arabia or any other Arab country. There are legal methods followed, and even when the Muslim Brotherhood was raised as a terrorist group during the Trump era, Previously presented m The law of classifying the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group was limited to three times under Obama and under other presidents, but it was not categorized because it was not under American law.

The classification is based on dealing or extending cooperation with terrorist organizations and carrying out terrorist operations. Terrorism, so I do not think in the near or distant future that these groups will be classified as terrorist groups unless they can provide some Arab countries proofs and documents accepted by American legal institutions that these groups carried out acts of terrorism on which to classify them in the list This bill asks them to give the required data that supports the decision that the US Congress thought to classify these groups as terrorist groups. And based on the supporting documents accepted within the United States, whether financial, logistical, military or what is placed under the law of America, but I go back and say that can not be classified on the hue or proposal of any Arab country.
* Trump came out of his last visit to Saudi Arabia after the three summits, with massive arms deals, the biggest deals in world history. After the Qatari crisis, the US administration also made arms deals with Qatar except its air base there. How do you read it?

The United States seeks in view of its interests first, if we followed Trump's remarks after returning from a recent summit in Riyadh, we find that it has raised to the American people to achieve the victory of the great achievements and do not forget his campaign promises as well, Trump was able to bring to the United States deals amounting to more than $ 400 billion From military and other deals, and the indication that he was able to gather in one place more than fifty Arab and Muslim leaders, and his initiative in cooperation with the leaders of the Arab countries to combat terrorism, this is the nature of President Trump in particular he tries to attribute a lot of work to himself, and there is no encroachment on Arab political knows that Trump did not achieve internal successes introduced what he has done outside the United States as his successes calculated to the American people.

* What is your comment that the United States of these deals are planning long-term steps for a military war between these two countries, especially after the deployment of Turkish troops and Iranian support in Qatar to protect the royal palace, and Washington will stand by in the event of this war?

I do not think the issue of armament will lead to war because its outbreak in that region will lead to great economic devastation. The world is now tangled and has relations with the Gulf region, so the occurrence of war means it will affect the rise and fall of energy in general and will affect the world economy. In the Arab region, there are views within the American administration and previous administrations that there must be an Arab-Arab or Islamic-Islamic conflict so that the Arab countries will distance themselves from the conflict with Israel. There is also the Iranian bogeyman. I think that both the Arab and Iranian sides fell into a trap and became And the American community stands and watches the Arabs and Muslims quarrel among themselves, so we find the greatest criticism of the Americans and Europeans of the Arabs their sectarian conflicts among themselves, and go back and say the American deals. Saudi Arabia, for example, must be separated from politics. It is a business transaction and whoever pays more is excluded. The dimension is that arms deals are for war even if there is a US base in Qatar. There are strict agreements on this matter that can not undermine this

* In your opinion, if there is no military solution in the Gulf region, will it continue with a long-term media war between the conflicting parties, and we know that the media is stronger than the weapons in the war?
There will be no military war, but the media war is much stronger than the military war. We saw one of the Arab demands to close Qatar's Al-Jazeera. For example, this channel has distorted many facts and changed public opinion, and we know that strong media can change and do everything.


* Do you really like what some experts and observers say to the political arena that the only beneficiary of this crisis is Trump because it has large economic debts from some banks and these deals came to solve the financial problem and the argument was terrorism, what is your comment?

I agree with this view because Trump came and was a guiding principle (America's first), and must be aware of the Arab citizen that Trump was elected from the American citizen to support the policies and the American economy has promised the US president pledged a lot of promises, Trump's primary responsibility is the growth of the US economy with security and safety and not other things we find even the tone used by Trump in his term election, has warned of this speech, when he said that the Arabs to pay for the protection of the United States have so it should be remembered that these policies do not go courtesy and smile and dance with the Arab brothers, the fact that administrative American and Trump in particular trying to play a role in the Arab region for the benefit of its own policy and re-election again.
* What is your comment on some reactions, especially from some members of the US Senate, specifically the Democrats, to the US-Saudi deal, for their recent accusations of human rights abuses at home and abroad and support of some terrorist organizations, they say?

This response is expected from the Democrats or even the Republicans because the United States is an open world and the views of the Democrat or the Republican are available according to his information. There were accusations against Saudi Arabia and even issues related to the events of September 11. Obama, stop it in Congress even with the use of the veto, but I go back and say that we are still in the Middle East counting on the US President and certain personalities and the Arabs can not continue these policies because various departments within the administration and other institutions can take decisions And believe that the US Congress is imposing sanctions or issuing laws such as the issue of human rights in Saudi Arabia and not only in the Kingdom, even after the visit of the Egyptian president to the United States. Some criticized, and a few days later we saw discussions within the US Congress about human rights in Egypt so it is necessary to distinguish between US policy and the American president.

This response is expected from the Democrats or even the Republicans because the United States is an open world and the views of the Democrat or the Republican are available according to his information. There were accusations against Saudi Arabia and even issues related to the events of September 11. Obama, stop it in Congress even with the use of the veto, but I go back and say that we are still in the Middle East counting on the US President and certain personalities and the Arabs can not continue these policies because various departments within the administration and other institutions can take decisions And believe that the US Congress is imposing sanctions or issuing laws such as the issue of human rights in Saudi Arabia and not only in the Kingdom, even after the visit of the Egyptian president to the United States. Some criticized, and a few days later we saw discussions within the US Congress about human rights in Egypt so it is necessary to distinguish between US policy and the American president.

Base "IUD" (Short Description)
It should be noted that at the end of the 1991 Gulf War, Qatar signed an agreement with the United States for military cooperation between the two countries, which resulted in the construction of the base of the "IUD" or "Abu Nakhla" airport in 1996 at a cost of one billion dollars, and It was secretly used by the United States in 2001 in the war on Afghanistan and a year later the US troops were officially deployed to the base, and the base has been expanded over time and includes a large number of weapons, fuel and advanced aircraft and high-tech, and also launched aircraft to launch air strikes against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. In addition to the al-Qaeda base, the United States uses the "Al-Sailiya" base near Doha, where the US Central Command is headquartered. The United States, which opened in 2000, stockpiles weapons, weapons and ammunition to equip an armored brigade.

(Question)
*In the midst of the current Gulf crisis, the UAE has expressed its willingness to discuss the possibility of the transfer of the base, "IUD" in the State of Qatar in the event of the United States desire to do so, but the statements of US officials, especially the military, ruled out that and stressed that "IUD" plays a pivotal role in the military operations of coalition aircraft in Syria and Iraq, how to read this position?

US military bases are different from any other rule, is a full country where all services, communications, roads, their own as well as military leaders do not usually interfere in political matters, and the transfer of military base from one place to another requires enormous expense and preparations and equipment is not easy to apply even if the UAE offered or Saudi Arabia to the United States and military leaders to transfer the base approval or acceptance of such transportation, and the presence of al-Qaeda in Qatar, whatever will happen occur from the events will not affect al-Qaeda and we have seen that the US military did not intervene even when summoned Qatar Turkish troops and support Alai I did not see the US forces intervened or even objected to the intervention, the US rule is part of the United States and protected American laws even if any place in the world.

States' positions
* How to read a quick reading positions of Britain, Russia, France, China and Spain on the Gulf-Qatar crisis and their calls for dialogue? What is your reading and comment about support positions from Germany to Qatar?
It is expected that there will be differences in the positions of different countries, depending on Qatar's relations with those countries. For example, in Germany there is a large participation of Qatar in two major companies, namely WFWF and Siemens. Its relationship with this country calls for this, and if it was not serious support, it was only a statement and not a form of support. For those countries that have stood neutral or try to encourage Arab countries to dialogue, such as Britain and now the United States and other countries, An internal problem that could spark a war of words Or economic relations between them may affect the global economy so we see those countries have stood on the neutrality.

* What is your quick reading of the neutral positions of the Maghreb countries, such as Algeria and Tunisia, Morocco's food aid to Qatar, and the neutrality of Sudan, Pakistan and Somalia?
For the Maghreb countries as a whole, for example, Morocco's support of Qatar to food and other certainly have a national economic interest because Qatar has foreign investments in billions in many countries and in the past years has been able to adopt a flexible policy with several countries so we can not neglect this subject, Since the crisis ignited the shuttle flights by many members of the Qatari and foreign ruling family to attract support and change the global perspective and the use of legal institutions even in the United States was hired a major defense institution and its president, US Attorney General Before the defense and improvement of the image of Qatar, so there is a kind of Qatari mobility led to the divergence of these views as we have seen.

* What about Palestine's neutral position, while Israel stood against Qatar and was with the policy of severing relations how to read it?
The Israeli-Palestinian position is understandable. I think that Israel has found its interest in standing with other Arab countries. Now we have to talk about reality. Israel has become an ally of some Arab countries and it is in their interest to stand against Qatar and support terrorism. For Palestine, it was in the best interest of her opinion to be close to some Arab countries that stood by neutrality.
* In your opinion, will the Qatari crisis be of benefit to the Palestinian-Israeli relations, to calm the situation between the two parties, or will this crisis fuel their relations more?

I do not think this crisis will affect the Palestinian-Israeli relations because it is already complex. We have seen that the American president could not resolve any of the issues related to these relations. The veteran Israeli politician could point the finger at the Palestinian through Palestinian-Palestinian differences and always imagine that Israel can not talk to A real representative of the Palestinian people has been used these toys and unfortunately the Palestinian reality now bitter makes the Israeli act this way.
*What about the Turkish-Iranian support for Qatar, do you think it will continue?

There are common interests between Qatar and these two countries, especially Turkey. There are many agreements between them. Therefore, the interests are one and the support is continuing. For the Iranian support, it is a Qatari attempt to attract Iran into the Arab region so that it is a thorn in the neck of Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries. And as a kind of threat and pressure on Saudi Arabia and other countries where Iranian interventions such as Bahrain and the Emirates because we know there are Iranian interventions in those areas.
* And for Turkey and its clear and supportive position on Qatar, why do you say at the same time that this does not mean cutting Turkey's relationship with any Gulf country and that it will take the role of mediator to resolve the crisis and there were reciprocal visits with Qatar and Saudi Arabia?

Turkey has taken advantage of this situation because it sees its intervention in accordance with its relations and cooperation with the Gulf Cooperation Council. We also heard from the Turkish side that its intervention in Qatar is based on protected agreements with the Gulf Cooperation Council. Turkey also saw Kuwait as having a role in resolving the issue politically. We know that Turkey is trying to be a leader in the Arab and Islamic region, and it is also afraid to be accused of supporting terrorism, so it is obvious that there is Qatari-Turkish cooperation, especially that Qatar has major investments in Turkey, Moore shared Turkey and Qatar what led to what it is now.

The positions of Iraq, Syria and Kuwait

**Iraq is in a state of war with ISIS and there are many military and security statements confirm that the battle of Mosul close to completion, and recently there was a visit to the Iraqi Prime Minister, Haider Abadi, to Saudi Arabia, Iran and Kuwait, do you think this hot crisis will affect Iraq negatively or positively in the distant future in one way or another?
Iraq will not be affected by this crisis and because the country has tried to take different positions and neutral, at the same time, with the Arab countries, Iraq has internal problems, which distanced itself from the intervention in this subject, in addition to the war in Mosul is the first interest because it is fighting a war on Terrorism, so I do not think Iraq will be affected by the Qatari crisis.

* What is your comment and what you read about what Abbadi said, that Iraq's position on this crisis is neutral, because Iraq adopts a policy of openness and dealing with all countries, and it is not a battlefield for conflict and war between countries fighting between them?
I think that this statement is a seasoned political statement that does not want to put his country in these conflicts, especially that Iraq at the crossroads between the fight against terrorism and the relationship with Iran and the rest of the Arab neighbors, I think this statement is a politically correct thought to keep his country away from these crises and conflicts that may end and end , And soon, so as not to take Iraq also that he was with a party against another party so I salute this position.
* In your opinion, is not cutting off Iraq's relations with Qatar will negatively affect Iraq's relations with the rest of the Gulf?

I do not think so, because Iraq acted correctly to distance itself from Gulf relations and because I also see that the solution of this crisis will be close, and because Iraq, especially in its current situation, with a party against another party is not in the interest of the Arab States will understand this position and will benefit Iraq in the other.

The Kurds
*Do you think that the Qatari crisis will also affect what some Kurdish parties intend to establish an independent Kurdish state, the Kurdistan region announced the date of 25 September for the referendum on independence from Iraq, and Abadi describes the illegal procedure, is it possible to exploit this crisis for the benefit of the Kurds, according to some observers of the Kurdish issue that Saudi Arabia is possible to support the establishment of the Kurdish state as a kind of countries defending Qatar, such as Turkey, what comment and read this topic?

I think that the Kurds in the Kurdistan region are always trying to use positions around them with their good relations with Western countries and the United States in their favor, and there is a view that it is right for the Kurds to travel in the region, especially after the big problems with Turkey and some interrelations with Baghdad there are those who support this view, Saudi Arabia will support the Kurds as a metaphor for other countries, but there will be some kind of wisdom and wisdom in support of this subject, and we have seen that Abadi described as illegal and we also saw the Kurds said that it is only a referendum and we will not move so we have to wait until this referendum ends and what will Krad, bearing in mind that there are those who support the view of the right of the Kurds to have an independent state.

* How do you read the impact of the crisis on Syria, and the Syrian position on this issue?
The Syrian position will not be affected in any way. There are serious problems in Syria with the different parties, whether they are with Saudi Arabia and some neighboring countries. The Syrian regime is not stable until its opinion can be taken.

* What is your comment and what do you think of the Kuwaiti position in the midst of this hot crisis?
Kuwait considered it to take the position of those who are trying to reform their relations on the basis of the non-disintegration of the Gulf Cooperation Council, and some see this position well to be a way out of this crisis, while some see that Kuwait has not been exposed to direct plots from Qatar took this position, but in the end Kuwait is trying To have a humanitarian position in dealing with Qatari citizens and those in other countries in addition to being a joint party dealing with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE to dialogue with Qatar, so in general the position of Kuwait is a good position to call for dialogue and calm.

Tiran and Sanafir

*What is your response to the statements made that the issue of the subordination of the islands of Tiran and Sanafir has to do with the issue of the Qatari-Gulf crisis? Is this file to determine the extent of the interests and rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Egypt?
The issue has nothing to do with the crisis because the issue of the subordination of the islands of Tiran and Sanafir was raised before the conflicts with Qatar escalated. The accusations against Qatar, whether from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other countries, differ in heart and form, but some try to put the two problems together, but they are completely separate

Arabic world, where to?
*In the end, the Arab region as a whole under these hot crises and the control of some armed groups and armed groups in some countries, where to go?
I think that the Arab region is going to what you want to go because it is a policy followed by the Arabs themselves. We always wondered how European countries could unite. The European Union is different in race, language, culture and even religion. The Arabs have the same language, religion, culture and can not Unite, and the Union does not mean the abolition of the personalities of each country, but what we see now is because of ignorance and lack of understanding and allow the West to enter, the Arab countries as soon as there is a dispute resorting to the West then come and complain and see the sectarian differences in the Arab countries themselves,

Which led to the West Countries All Arab countries, so I see if the situation of the Arab countries did not settle within them and cooperate to preserve their interests and do not allow any of the people, whether Russia or the United States and others to intervene in their affairs, will be dismantled and manipulated and the demolition of everything that has been built, The Arab countries have the conscious leaders in this crisis because if it develops, it will lead to great destruction and things that are not calculated on it. There are firm opinions within American policy and opinion centers that the interests of Israel and the United States, which some believe to have been achieved, This etc Political and religious leaders must understand that the killing of an Arab by his Arab brother or Muslim for his Muslim brother and whatever his culture or background is not the solution but will lead to a permanent conflict.