Reflections from news and commentary of the day
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Wednesday, November 4, 2026
[Salon] Sisi’s phoney war - ArabDigest.org Guest Post
Sisi’s phoney war
Summary: Egyptian President Sisi’s precipitous rush to back Saudi Arabia in its war with Yemen’s Huthis has been met with stiff resistance from his military and security elites.
We thank our regular contributor Maged Mandour for today’s newsletter. Maged is a political analyst who also contributes to Middle East Eye and Open Democracy. He is a writer for Sada, the Carnegie Endowment online journal and the author of Egypt under El-Sisi (I.B.Tauris) which examines social and political developments since the coup of 2013. You will find his most recent Arab Digest podcast The encirclement of Sisi here.
In a speech on 17 October, President Sisi called for an urgent parliamentary session to authorise sending Egyptian troops to support Saudi Arabia in its ongoing war with the Huthis. The language used in the speech implied a large deployment, with Sisi stating his willingness to act according to the “directive of King Salman and the Crown Prince.” It took parliament a week to deliberate and approve the deployment, authorising Sisi to take all necessary measures, granting him a blank cheque to proceed as he wished. This strong gesture, however, seems to be only just that, with the deployment most likely remaining limited and defensive in nature. That is a fact not lost on the Saudis who are yet to issue any official comment on the Egyptian offer, a clear diplomatic cold shoulder. At play are a number of factors placing real limits on the ability of the regime to project power, even if Sisi wants to.
Perhaps the most surprising of these limits is elite dissent against the move, with reports appearing that claim the decision announced by Sisi triggered dissent within the National Security Council headed by the president, which approved the deployment on the 18 October. The dissent seems to have revolved around the nature of the deployment and its scope, as well as critiques of Sisi's choice of words i.e. “according to the directive of King Salman and the Crown Prince” which was considered demeaning to the Egyptian military. This dissent seems to have been effective, with the Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty and intelligence chief, Major General Hassan Mahmoud Rashad, travelling to Riyadh to deliver a message that the role of Egyptian troops would be limited to protecting Saudi territory rather than attacking Yemen, thus greatly diminishing the utility to the Saudis of the troop deployment. Dissent was also reflected in the delay in the parliamentary approval to send troops, which took a week of deliberation, an eternity for Sisi's rubber-stamp parliament. Whether this is an indication of genuine dissent or a delaying tactic to buy some time for the military elites to agree to the troop deployment remains unclear but it is an obvious sign of tension within the regime around the issue. It is worth noting that this is not the first time the president has faced dissent. For example, as the Israeli genocide in Gaza intensified Sisi was inclined to accept the mass exodus of the Palestinians, a prospect that was vetoed by the military on national security grounds, showing the real limit the elites can choose to place on his power.
On 29 July a drone attack caused a fire aboard two vessels off the Mediterranean port of Damietta, the first such attack on Egyptian territory since the Iran war erupted in late February. Ansar Allah (the Huthis) denied any responsibility for the attack.
The other clear limit on the regime's ability to project power is the fragility of the Egyptian economy and the immense damage that the Huthis can inflict if they decide to strike the Suez Canal and other Egyptian infrastructure. The Huthis have already warned that Egypt’s involvement will be considered an act of war with the Suez Canal as a highly likely primary target. This comes at a time when the Egyptian economy is under immense pressure to keep hot money - short-term highly liquid and speculative financial capital - flowing into the country when energy prices remain high and structural imbalances are deepening. For example, the current account balance deficit has widened to reach US$22.5 billion in the fiscal year 2025/26 that ended in June of this year, up from US$15.4 billion the previous year, an increase of 46%. The balance of trade deficit hit a record US$65 billion, driven by an increase in the price of oil and gas which contributed a whopping US$18.3 billion to the deficit. The increased pressure is reflected in the value of the Egyptian pound, trading at more than 56 to the dollar, an historic low. This places a premium on the ability of the regime to attract capital inflows to Egyptian debt instruments, which explains the decision of the central bank to raise interest rates by 100 basis points, the first increase since March 2024. The increase, however, will only act to pile pressure onto the already strained state budget. That in turn will increase the need to borrow more. It is a vicious circle which will be worsened by the now widely expected attack on Iran and the increase in energy prices that are bound to follow, as well as the anticipated increase in interest rates by the Fed, all applying pressure on an already fragile economy.
Hence, Sisi’s decision to deploy troops is facing real constraints and might have significant blowback. If the goal was to placate Saudi Arabia in the hope that it would provide much-needed funds, that does not seem to have worked. On top of Riyadh not issuing an official statement welcoming the deployment of troops, underlining Sisi's increasingly marginalised situation, Egypt was missing from the talks between Türkiye, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran that took place in Tehran. If the Huthis carried out their threat and start to attack the Suez Canal and other crucial infrastructure, it would have a disastrous effect on the Egyptian economy, particularly if it is followed by a mass exodus of hot money. In a war of attrition, this scenario is not unlikely, especially if the Saudi-Huthi conflict drags on. Finally, if Trump launches a major attack on Iran causing energy prices to spike while Egyptian ports and the Suez Canal are under Huthi attack, an already deep fiscal crisis will only get that much deeper. A steep price to pay for Sisi’s act of verbal bravado.
Fr. Bob's Reflection for All Saints Day - Guest Post
Today the Church celebrates the Feast of All Saints: a day when the Church invites us to look beyond the saints we know by name and consider what it truly means to be a saint.
But who are the saints? I once heard someone describe them as “Heaven’s football team.”
We might think so when we read the letters of St. Paul, as he describes the saints as those who have run the race, fought the good fight and pressed on to win the crown. But not all saints were athletes – and sainthood is about much more than winning a race or achieving something extraordinary.
The standard answer is to say that the saints are the heroes and heroines of Christian life –people for whom we name our churches and our children. They are the people who are close to God.
When we think of the saints, we may picture a rare and extraordinary group, people like Francis of Assisi, Anthony of Padua and Teresa of Calcutta. Their holiness can seem so far beyond our own reach that sainthood feels like something reserved only for a select few.
But sanctity is much closer than we realize.
Being a saint means living the two great commandments Jesus gave us: love God and love your neighbor as yourself. If we strive to do that, we, too, can become saints. Perhaps it isn’t as difficult as we might think.
In today’s Gospel, Jesus does not say, “Blessed are those who strive mightily to be righteous.” Instead, He says, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.” In other words, blessed are those who recognize that they cannot become righteous without God’s grace.
Jesus does not say, “Blessed are the makers of masterpieces.” He says, “Blessed are the meek.” He doesn’t say, “Blessed are those who thrill us with their brilliance.” Instead, He says, “Blessed are those who mourn” – those who do not turn away from the sorrow of a wounded world.
You see, we do not need heroic holiness to become saints. The opportunity for sanctity is already before us. When we offer a listening ear to a struggling friend, help someone in need or feed the hungry, aren’t we becoming the people God calls us to be? Because of something you have done, someone’s life may be a little different.
Sometimes we become so caught up in our sins and shortcomings that we forget the good we have done and how hard we try to do what is right.
St. Augustine once wrote, “People go out to wonder at the mountain peaks, and the boundless waves of the sea, the long courses of the rivers and the motions of the stars, and yet they leave themselves unnoticed. They do not marvel at themselves.”
My friends, take time to marvel – not at ourselves in pride, but at the goodness God has placed within us and at the good works of those around us.
And perhaps, one day, All Saints Day will be your feast day.
Yours in Christ,
Fr. Robert Warren, S.A.
Spiritual Director
Tuesday, November 3, 2026
Monday, November 2, 2026
Sunday, November 1, 2026
Saturday, October 31, 2026
(2) Facebook - Something Big is Happening at Lake Powell
(2) Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1149671667571013
Friday, October 30, 2026
Thursday, October 29, 2026
Wednesday, October 28, 2026
Fr. Bob's Reflection for the Thirtieth Sunday in Ordinary Time - Guest Post
There was once a movie about a little boy who went to live with his wealthy grandfather. The grandfather was selfish and mean, but the little boy idolized him. He didn’t see his grandfather’s abrasive nature. Instead, he believed his grandfather was generous and kind.
By the end of the movie, the boy’s love softens his grandfather’s heart. He becomes the kind of person his grandson always believed him to be.
Love is at the heart of Jesus’ teaching and His life. Love is at the center of the greatest commandment we hear in today’s Gospel: “Love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength – and love your neighbor as yourself.”
When I think of Jesus’ ultimate expression of love, I think of the crucifixion. What makes the crucifixion such a profound symbol of Jesus’ love?
First, it is a dramatic sign of love. Jesus said, “There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for a friend.” On the cross, Jesus gave His very Self so that we might have eternal life.
But while the crucifixion is the sign of love Jesus gives us, we must also recognize that He sacrificed Himself because we are lovable. If we do not see ourselves as lovable, it becomes difficult to love others.
Blessed Bishop Fulton Sheen, who was beatified last month, once said, “The less we are loved, the less lovable we become. The less lovable we become, the less capable we are of loving others.”
My friends, we must learn to see ourselves as valuable and lovable in the eyes of God. When we recognize how deeply we are loved, we become capable of giving that love away to others.
Secondly, besides being a sign of love, the crucifixion is an invitation to love. It shows us, in the most visible way, what Jesus means when He tells us, “Love one another, as I have loved you.”
We see this kind of love lived out when a young adult begins tutoring a struggling student, then goes on to read to the blind and visit the elderly. Perhaps for the first time, that young person has discovered their own value. Having experienced that love, that young person is now able to share it with others who need it.
Finally, the crucifixion is a revelation of love. It reveals something we might rather not hear: Love can involve suffering.
Think about the defining characteristics of love: patience, kindness, forgiveness and humility. All of these can be difficult to live.
It is painful to be patient when someone is shouting at you. It is painful to be kind when someone is hurtful or disrespectful toward you. It is painful to forgive when someone has betrayed you. And it is painful to be humble enough to admit that you were wrong.
Yet sometimes, the pain is proof that we are truly loving. It means we are choosing love when it would be easier to choose anger, resentment, pride or indifference.
Perhaps that is what the cross asks of us: not only to receive the love of Jesus, but to love as He loved; to recognize we are loved, and let that love flow to others.
The little boy’s love changed his grandfather. How much more can Christ’s love change us –and, through us, touch the lives of others?
Yours in Christ,
Fr. Robert Warren, S.A.
Spiritual Director
[Salon] A Reflection on the Israeli Election
FM: John Whitbeck
With more than 85% of votes having been counted, the distribution of the 120 Knesset seats is shaping up as follows: 53 seats for the five parties of the current government, 48 seats for the four anti-Bibi "Zionist" parties and 19 seats for the two anti-Bibi "Arab" parties.
While there may be slight changes when the final apportionment of seats is announced on Friday, the fundamental electoral landscape has been set for the coalition building negotiations that follows all Israeli elections.
The basics:
1. A majority of Jewish Israeli voters support the current government.
2. A majority of all Israeli voters oppose the current government.
3. A stable "Change" government could be formed by the four anti-Bibi "Zionist" parties and the two anti-Bibi "Arab" parties.
4. If the anti-Bibi "Zionist" parties spurn the opportunity to form a democratic, non-racist coalition with the anti-Bibi "Arab" parties, which have made clear their desire to join forces to oust Bibi from power, it will constitute incontrovertible proof that, for "Zionists", racism is a value that trumps all other values and even the common political lust for power.
Unfortunately, two other scenarios are far more likely that the formation of a democratic, non-racist coalition of the six anti-Bibi parties:
1. The "Zionist" parties live up to their pledges to treat the "Arab" parties as untouchables, no "Zionist" coalition can be formed and the current government stays in power as a "caretaker" government until a new election roughly six months from now.
2. The three extreme-right anti-Bibi "Zionist" parties (Yashar, B'Yachad and Yisrael Beytenu), which have no significant ideological or policy differences (only personal differences) with Bibi, form a four-party coalition with Bibi's Likud Party (with or, more likely, without Bibi, who, at 77 and in less than robust health, might agree to retire from active politics on a relative high in return for a presidential pardon in his corruption trials). While such a coalition, excluding the two lunatic-right parties of Ben Gvir and Smotrich and the two ultra-Orthodox parties, could produce significant changes in some purely domestic matters, it would change nothing in Israel's behavior outside its internationally recognized borders. New or intensified wars would probably enhance the chances for the realization of this scenario.
Tuesday, October 27, 2026
Monday, October 26, 2026
Sunday, October 25, 2026
Saturday, October 24, 2026
Friday, October 23, 2026
Thursday, October 22, 2026
[Salon] The Suffocation of Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech in Norway Guest Post by Glenn Diesen
Date: Thu, Oct 22, 2026
Subject: Statement by Glenn Diesen
The very public execution of my professorship and reputation continues in Norway. Today’s media article about me makes three claims that are misleading and/or false.
1) The article dismisses my claim that my research is being criminalized as the journalists merely cite the dismissive comments from the university - no arguments are apparently required. It is not possible for an academic anymore to analyse the policies of rival powers by assessing their security concerns, as it will be smeared by the government, the government’s NGOs and the media as “legitimizing” the enemy and supporting their narratives. The current Defence Minister singled me out with the accusation of spreading propaganda and criticised two podcasters for even speaking with me (as I have already been cancelled by the media in Norway). How was this accusation by the Defence Minister substantiated? I had argued that NATO expansion triggered the war in Ukraine, which the Defence Minister denounce as dangerous “Russian propaganda”, with no need to substantiate his vile accusation. I can cite a sea of evidence and also refer to statements by American and European political leaders, ambassadors, intelligence chiefs, and others to make my case. However, the purpose is not to engage in debate, but to smear, censor, and cancel. By going after an individual academic for challenging official truths, the government has already claimed a monopoly on the truth. Academics should have their arguments scrutinised and criticised, but these are severe personal attacks from the government without the possibility of even defending myself. How is this not criminalising the research of an academic?
I cannot even speak at any events in Norway without the event being cancelled. The last event I agreed to speak at was because I shared the stage with the former CIA officer John Kiriakou. A newspaper had the event at a church cancelled, and when the backup location did not also cancel, the journalist simply printed in the paper that it had been cancelled so people would not show up. Is this normal? I must use my allotted holiday days to attend conferences because any event I attend can be presented as “controversial,” and then the NGOs and journalists will go after the reputation of the university. Is this normal? Every newspaper article about me merely refers to me as “controversial” or “pro-Russian” without ever assigning meaning to these labels or presenting my argument.
I have argued, much like former CIA director Burns, that if the West attempts to pull Ukraine into the NATO orbit, then there would be war and Ukraine would be destroyed. This is considered a “pro-Russian” argument. Arguing that we should respect the will of most Ukrainians who want negotiations to end the war is also considered a “pro-Russian” argument, while in contrast, boycotting diplomacy, deporting Ukrainian refugees, and calling for the conscription of Ukrainian women is “pro-Ukrainian”.
2) To avoid addressing any of my arguments, the journalists go on to uncritically cite personal attacks against me, pointing out that I have been called a propagandist by the Norwegian Helsinki Committee. This is a “non-governmental organisation” financed by the government and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which was set up by Reagan and the CIA director in 1983 to manipulate the civil society of other states. The Norwegian Helsinki Committee has been relentless in its smears on social media to have me fired, writing hit pieces in the media, pushing to cancel my speaking events, writing a letter to my university, and even posting a picture of my house on social media. This is a governmental "human rights organisation" that cites human rights concerns to build the case for war.
3) Lastly, to further avoid addressing my actual arguments, they simply cite the fact that arguments I made at a debate last year have been “wholly or partially debunked” by a fact-check. The state-run media (NRK) invited the state-run military defence institute (FFI) to fact-check three of my claims. What claims did they "debunk"?
My first claim was that only 20% of Ukrainians wanted NATO membership between 1991 and the regime change in February 2014. The fact-checker argued that the number went up by the middle of 2014 (after Russia responded by seizing Crimea), which is a completely meaningless comment intended to muddy the waters, as my argument was about the previous era.
My second claim was that Zelensky had argued in an interview with The Economist in March 2022 that there were some Western countries that would like a long war with Russia to weaken a strategic rival, even if it would result in the destruction of Ukraine. The fact-checker argued that not all Western countries wanted a long war and that it was not an official policy. I never claimed it was an official policy, as it was primarily the US and UK pushing for a long war.
My third claim was that the US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement in April 2022. The fact-checker claimed this was incorrect and suggested that it could only be based on one statement by David Arakhamia. The fact-checker did not want to mention that both mediators also confirmed it: Turkey’s foreign minister and the former Israeli prime minister both said that Russia and Ukraine were close to a deal, but the US and UK saw an opportunity to weaken Russia by fighting with Ukrainians. Zelensky’s former adviser Arestovych confirmed it, and the Ukrainian ambassador Chaly, who participated in the negotiations, confirmed that Putin was willing to do almost anything to end the war. The former head of the German armed forces confirmed that Boris Johnson sabotaged it, and Boris Johnson himself wrote articles warning about a “bad peace” and arguing for “strategic patience.” I am being fact-checked by war propagandists.
Unfortunately, none of my arguments matter because in Norway there is no debate and no interest in any arguments. Reality means nothing anymore as war narratives must be defended against inconvenient truths. I used to be naïve and think that the endless smears were caused by misunderstanding, as I had simply not been able to convey my arguments properly. However, the endless articles with smears and labels are deliberate lies and deceptions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)