The fear of Trump is not the beginning of wisdom. But it is time to tread carefully, with clear eyes and a steady hand.

As a child, whenever I refused to eat or take bitter traditional medicine, my mother would threaten to call Werekacithe unstable and aggressive man who lived at the end of our street. The fear alone was enough to make me comply instantly. I simply obeyed anything out of fear.

Years later, I have come to recognise that Werekaci has many faceson social media, in political spaces, and sometimes in the corridors of global power. The psychology remains the same: invoke a frightening name and watch people abandon their better judgment.
It is through this prism that I now view the growing anxiety in certain Nigerian circles over the posture of United States President Donald Trump toward Nigeriaand the implications this anxiety may have for our 2027 general elections.

Recently, after publishing a series of opinion articles challenging the so-called Christian genocide narrative promoted by separatist advocates and ethno-religious agitators, my social media pages were flooded with coordinated hostility. Within less than an hour of one post, more than 500 abusive comments appearedattacking not only me but also my family, culture, faith, region and even my country.

Some thoughtful readers later pointed out that most of the accounts were fake, bots and faceless handles with no real constituency. Since then, I have adopted a simple rule: I welcome criticism from people of reason, but I delete reckless and bad-faith attacks from extremists.

The same psychology of manipulation appears to be shaping parts of the discourse around Nigeria and President Trump, whose derogatory remarks about our country are well-documented. In earlier writings, I addressed several of these claims, particularly his repeated references to protecting Nigerian Christians without acknowledging Muslim victims of violence. What is troubling is that some Nigerians now amplify such narratives for domestic political advantage.

When American forces reportedly launched a strike in Sokoto on the eve of Christmas, Trump quickly addressed a Christian audience, invoking what he claimed he could do. Yet Sokoto is neither the epicentre of terrorism nor a major banditry hotspot in Nigeria. The target appeared deliberately symbolic because of its Islamic heritage.

So far, the Nigerian government has gone to extraordinary lengths to placate Washington. Officials have repeatedly shuttled to the United States, hosted American lawmakers in Nigeria, and spent substantial sums on U.S. lobbying firms. Nigeria has also conceded ground on arms-procurement decisions, facilitated the release of Catholic schoolchildren, and even allowed American troops to operate on its soilan unprecedented development in our history. Yet the so-called Christian-genocide campaign has continued to resurface.

Then, on Wednesday, March 4, 2026, as Muslims were leaving a mosque after breaking their Ramadan fast in Ngoshe, Borno State, terrorists slaughtered the Imam and several worshippers while abducting more than 100 women and children. There was no comparable outcrynot from American lawmakers and certainly not from President Trump. The silence was both deafening and revealing: the tragedy simply did not fit the narrative being promoted. But the truth remains clearMuslim lives, to them, appear not to matter.

Meanwhile, among the most reckless accusations circulating on my posts is the claim that Muslims are complicit in terrorism. I do not dignify such claims with extended debate. Long before Boko Haram became a household name, I had written extensively condemning those who falsely invoke Islam to justify violence. These writings appeared in major Nigerian newspapers.

During the ethno-religious conflicts that spread from Maiduguri to Onitsha in 2006, precisely twenty years ago, one of my articles titled Killing in the Name of the Devil appeared in national newspapers, including The Punch, Leadership, Daily Sun, Vanguard, Financial Standard, Daily Trust, and Daily Champion, among others. The article remains accessible on my blog, yashuaib.com, complete with the publication dates.

Over the years, I have written about Boko Haram, banditry, and the Nigerian states failures in counter-terrorismalways as a proud Northern Muslim guided by the Quranic injunction that states: Fear a tumult which will affect not only those who caused it, but also the innocent among you. (Quran 8:25).

Ironically, when I criticise my own people, some critics cheer me. But the moment I point out similar flaws in theirs, those cheers quickly turn into outrage. I have never been hypocritical on this matter. I do not tolerate bullying whether institutional, political, or digitaland I do not argue with fools.

Northerners, contrary to certain stereotypes, are far more tolerant than the fanatics often portrayed in social media debates. The behaviour of a divisive minority should not be mistaken for the character of the majority.

General Theophilus Danjuma, for instance, is widely respected in the North for championing a united Nigeria where all citizens are equal regardless of faith or ethnicity. Similarly, when Abubakar Badaru, a Muslim from Jigawa, was replaced as Defence Minister by General Christopher Musa, a Christian from Kaduna, mainstream Northern opinionincluding Islamic clericswelcomed the development. This acceptance was particularly strong in Sokoto and Maiduguri, where Musa had previously lived, served with distinction and protected civilian lives, leading to the surrender or neutralisation of thousands of terrorists under his watch.

Following recent global events, some commentators have interpreted the U.S.Israel strikes on Iran as a warning for Northern Nigeria, even urging President Trump to oppose Sharia law and Muslim-Muslim tickets. While the Middle East conflict has been widely condemned by several global powers, these critics continue to frame the issue through a simplistic us versus them narrative.

They also overlook a geopolitical reality: Irans isolation was partly worsened by the silence of several neighbouring Arab Muslim states, who either ignored the attack on a fellow Muslim nationthough a non-Arab oneor appeared aligned with the aggressors. Ironically, the critics also ignore a demographic fact: Iran today has a larger Christian population than Israel.

Some commentators further argue that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu may be cautious about provoking Donald Trump, citing the pressure Washington has exerted on countries such as Iran and Venezuela. They therefore predict a possible political adjustment within the Presidency, including speculation that Trump might urge Tinubu to reconsider the current joint ticket ahead of the 2027 elections.

While it would be unfair to deny Vice President Kashim Shettima the continuity enjoyed by his predecessors, Nigerias political choices must remain sovereign. One point must also be stated plainly: if Shettima must be compelled to sacrifice his position under foreign pressure, President Tinubu should ensure that any adjustment does not deepen the already glaring imbalance in federal appointments.

Today, several key institutions in Nigerias economic and financial system are disproportionately led by individuals from one geopolitical zoneand largely from one religious background. The Ministry of Finance, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS/NRS), PenCom, NDIC, EFCC, NAICOM, AMCON, the Bank of Agriculture, and the Bank of Industry (BOI) are not minor posts. They represent the commanding heights of the national economy.

When leadership of these institutions tilts toward Yorubanisation or Christianisation, it becomes more than a matter of opticsit begins to strain the fragile social contract upon which Nigerias unity rests.

The Igbo, who also feel excluded from sensitive and lucrative positions, must likewise be considered in any recalibration aimed at strengthening national cohesion.

The global communityincluding sections of the American public itselfis increasingly realising that fear of Trump is not the beginning of wisdom. It may well be the beginning of capitulation.

Nigeria must resist the temptation to organise its internal politics around the moods of a foreign leader. We must engage Washington where necessary, push back where appropriate, and above all ensure that our national decisionsincluding decisions about who leads us in 2027are made in Abuja, not in Mar-a-Lago.

Werekaci may be loud. But he does not live here.

Yushau A. Shuaib is the author of An Encounter with the Spymaster. He writes from yashuaib@yashuaib.com.

The post 2027 Elections: The Fear of Trump, Werekaci and Nigerian Politics By YAShuaib appeared first on YAShuaib.

I write this with deep concernnot anger, but concernover what increasingly appears to be a troubling pattern in the posture of the United States under President Donald Trump toward Nigeria, particularly its Muslim communities and northern leadership.

Since Trumps return to office, a narrative has steadily gathered momentum in Washington: that Nigeria is a theatre of Christian genocide, orchestrated or tolerated by Muslim political actors. It is a grave allegation. It is also one that many credible Nigerian authorities, religious leaders, security experts, and independent analysts have consistently challenged as simplistic, selective, and dangerously misleading.

Nigerias security crisis is real. Terrorism, banditry, communal clashes, and criminal violence have devastated communitiesMuslim and Christian alikein Borno, Zamfara, Niger, Benue, Plateau, Kaduna and beyond. But to reduce this complex web of criminality, governance failure, climate pressure, and arms proliferation into a one-dimensional religious war is not analysis; it is advocacy.

The genesis of this framing can be traced to lobbying efforts and reports amplified in foreign policy circlessome originating from discredited advocacy groups, whose data and claims have been publicly questioned by investigative journalists. Yet, these narratives have found fertile ground among certain US lawmakers and religious pressure blocs eager to fit Nigeria into a broader global persecution template.

President Trumps earlier designation of Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) over alleged religious persecution was controversial. The redesignation months later reinforced the perception that Washington had settled on a narrative, regardless of Nigerias internal complexities.

Driven by this ill-informed framing, Trump ordered a Christmas Day airstrike on Sokotohistorically the seat of Nigerias Islamic Caliphateas a symbolic gesture aimed at appeasing his Christian constituency. The strike occurred despite Sokoto being neither an epicentre of terrorism nor banditry. The Muslims did not protest the deliberate provocation, even after discovering that local collaborators were feeding Americans the so-called ‘Christian genocide’ narrative as a strategic ploy to influence Nigeria’s 2027 presidential tickets.

Now comes the introduction of the Nigeria Religious Freedom and Accountability Act of 2026 by US lawmakers Chris Smith, Riley Moore, Brian Mast, Mario Diaz-Balart, and Bill Huizenga. The bill seeks sanctionsincluding visa bans and asset freezesagainst former Kano State Governor Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso and certain Fulani-affiliated groups such as the Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association of Nigeria (MACBAN) and Miyetti Allah Kautal Hore.

More disturbingly, the legislation appears designed to pave the way for categorising Muslim political leaders as well as Fulani-ethnic nomad militias as foreign terrorist organisations.

It is so worrisome to scandalise a prominent political figure like Kwankwasoa Muslim who is not known as a religious extremiston the eve of his alignment ahead of Nigerias upcoming presidential election is deeply scandalous. Equally dangerous is the attempt to criminalise an entire ethnic identity under the sweeping label of Fulani militia, setting a perilous precedent.

Criminal elements exist across all ethnic and religious lines in Nigeria. But the Fulani, like the Igbo, Yoruba, Tiv, Kanuri, Ijaw or any other group, are a diverse population numbering in the millions. Collective blame is not justice; it is profiling.

Nigeria has welcomed increased U.S. military engagement, with AFRICOM officials meeting Nigerian security leaders and American troops now permitted to operate in the country. The government has also invested millions of dollars in diplomatic outreach and strategic lobbying. Yet the shift from partnership to punitive labelling raises an uncomfortable question: what exactly is Washington seeking?

And more importantly, what does Trumps new posture mean for Nigerians, Muslims and non-Muslims alike? Should it push us toward suspicion of one another or toward questioning the motives behind externally driven narratives, including those shaped by controversial reports from certain advocacy groups, especially the Onitsha-based Intersociety operated by a screwdriver salesman and other IPOB platforms?

If the concern is truly religious freedom, then policy must be anchored in verifiable evidence, not selective outrage. Terrorisms epicentresBorno under Boko Haram, Zamfara under banditry networks, Niger under insurgent infiltrationdo not fit neatly into a Christian-versus-Muslim binary. Victims in these theatres include imams, pastors, farmers, traders, and children of every faith.

As I reflected in my previous articles, the narrative that Nigerias Muslims are collectively complicit in anti-Christian persecution is not only inaccurate; it is inflammatory. It risks deepening mistrust within Nigerias fragile social fabric. It emboldens extremists who thrive on polarisation. And it externalises what should remain a sovereign, evidence-driven security discourse.

But sanctions based on politicised framing or fictitious advocacy-driven reports by secessionist and anti-Muslim groups undermine the credibility of international accountability mechanisms.

If President Trumps America truly seeks stability in West Africa, it must engage Nigeria in partnership, not profiling; in evidence, not emotion; in diplomacy, not designation.

Nigerias Muslims and Fulani ethnic groups do not need appeasement. They need fairness. Our country needs fact-based engagement, not fear.

Yushau A. Shuaib is the author of An Encounter with the Spymaster and Award-Winning Crisis Communication Strategies.
yashuaib@yashuaib.com

The post Trumps America and Labelling of Kwankwaso, Fulani, and Nigerian Muslims by YAShuaib appeared first on YAShuaib.

When U.S. President Donald Trump recently renewed his fixation with what he described as “Christian genocide” in Nigeriagoing as far as calling the country a “disgraced nation”I couldn’t help but laugh. Not because Nigeria’s security challenges are trivial, but because Trump’s history of loud, reckless, and contradictory outbursts makes it difficult for any serious observer to take him at face value.

This is the same Trump who, during his first tenure, described Nigeria among African “shithole countries” and labelled then-President Muhammadu Buhari as “lifeless.” He once confronted Buhari with the question, “Why are you killing Christians?”, despite being widely known for superficial engagement with facts. No American leader in modern times has displayed Trump’s blend of theatrical tantrums, political sensationalism, and Hollywood-style dramatics.

Trump’s behaviour is often stranger than fiction. Before the New York mayoral election, he repeatedly attacked Zohran Mamdani, a Muslim politician of South Asian descent born in Uganda, Africa, calling him a “communist” and threatening to punish New York City if he won. Trump vowed to slash federal funding, deploy the National Guard, and even suggested arresting him over immigration disagreements. Yet despite Trump’s intimidation, Mamdani wonproof that Trump’s political threats often collapse under their own emptiness.

His track record is replete with contradictions. He loudly condemns alleged “Islamists” in Nigeria yet openly courted controversial figures abroadincluding a former “terrorist leader” turned Syrian president, Ahmed al-Sharaa meeting him both in Saudi Arabia and at the White House. Despite presenting himself as a defender of persecuted Christians, Trump’s positions are dictated more by political theatre and personal interests than principle.

He once peddled a fabricated narrative of “white genocide” in South Africa, later dismissed by experts as propaganda. For someone whose policies contributed to the Gaza Genocide against Palestinians and whose rhetoric often inflames divisions, it is astonishing that some Nigerians still treat his statements as gospel truth.

Yet, certain political actors and ethnic propagandists celebrated Trump’s threat to “invade Nigeria,” as though foreign military intervention were a badge of honour. Thankfully, prominent Christian voicesespecially officials from the Middle Belt, including Benue State Governor Reverend Father Hyacinth Alia and Secretary to the Government of the Federation Senator George Akume, as well as vocal public commentators from Southern Nigeria such as Femi Fani-Kayode and Reno Omokrifirmly rejected the genocide narrative, affirming that violence in Nigeria affects Muslims and Christians alike.

Ironically, when Muslims attempted to counter the propaganda, some were accused of never condemning terrorism. But truth is not built on emotion. As a Muslim my writings over two decadesincluding 2003’s “Sharia: Between Civilisation and Belief,” 2006’s “Killing in the Name of the Devil,” 2012’s “Boko Haram and Political Elites in Northern Nigeria,” and 2018’s “Still on Murderous Fulani Kidnappers,” among othersdemonstrate consistent condemnation of all violent crimes, irrespective of perpetrators’ religion or region. My blog, www.yashuaib.com, further archives these personal opinion articles. Not everyone is a hypocrite. Some of us speak from conviction, not convenience.

Security as well as investigative media reports reveal that the so-called “Christian genocide” narrative was constructed mainly by disgruntled Middle Belt activists, IPOB sympathisers, and foreign lobby groups disguised as NGOs. While some Christian communities document every casualty, Muslim communitieswho have suffered the brunt of Boko Haram, banditry and state violence such as the 2016 Zaria Shiite massacrerarely do so. Terrorists have ravaged entire Muslim-majority towns in the North, but their tragedies lack global amplification because they do not fit a convenient foreign narrative.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu acted maturely by dispatching a delegation led by National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu to engage U.S. authorities. Observers noted that the Chief of Defence Staff, General Olufemi Oluyede, Inspector General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun and Chief of Defence Intelligence, Lt General Emmanuel Parker Undiandeye all Christianswere on that delegation. If there were a coordinated genocide against Christians, would these respected top security chiefs be complicit?

After every engagement involving Nigeria’s delegationincluding Attorney General Lateef Fagbemi and Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Bianca Ojukwu, with American authorities, deeply irresponsible official statements followed. Freshman U.S. Congressman Riley Moore mentioned “Christians” eight times without acknowledging Muslims who are also terrorism victims. Similarly, U.S. Secretary of Defence/War Pete Hegseth’s office emphasised “protection of Christians” and “stopping violence against Christians in Nigeria.”

What about other Nigerians who suffer the same violence? What is the agenda behind this selective framing? Are Muslims and other communities expected to remain silent in the face of such reckless rhetoric? This one-sided narrative sends a troubling messageas though Muslim lives do not matter in the scheme to undermine Nigeria. Even more unfortunate is that some Nigerians are celebrating this distortion, as if the rest of us are no longer their brothers and sisters in nationhood.

Meanwhile, as Ribadu’s delegation sought to clarify Nigeria’s secular stance in the USA, Trump welcomed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the White House. He approved a major defence pact, facilitated F-35 jet sales, and celebrated investment commitments worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Saudi Arabiathe spiritual heart of global Islamwas also designated a major U.S. ally, while Nigeria was labelled a “country of concern.” Trump’s selective morality is guided not by religious solidarity but by strategic and financial interests.

This makes one thing clear: Nigeria must resist being drawn into emotional propaganda. Americans, as responsible people, will never sanction the invasion of Nigeria over flimsy and concocted excuses as if we are a banana republic. Trump’s threats are mere bluster. The real danger lies in foreign-funded lobbyistsboth locally and internationallydriving the genocide narrative. Once Nigeria ceases to trend, they will shift their campaign elsewhere.

It would not be surprising if, realising that Trump is not coming, the so-called Christian genocide claimants may turn to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with claims that Jews are persecuted in Nigeria. Such a scenario would be absurd, yet not impossibleeven though the most vocal self-proclaimed “Nigerian Jew” is currently serving a terrorism sentence in Sokoto.

Nigeria’s security crises are real but not religious genocide. They stem from criminality, governance failures, climate pressure and economic distressnot state persecution.

Nigeria must confront these challenges honestly, rejecting foreign labels designed to fracture our unity.

The question remains: Is Trump protecting Nigerian Christiansor his own political and business interests, often in competition with China?

Yushau A. Shuaib is the author of “An Encounter with the Spymaster.” yashuaib@yashuaib.com

The post Genocide Claim: President Trump, Ribadu’s Team and the Saudi Prince appeared first on YAShuaib.

For decades, the specter of a Third World War loomed large in my mind, fueled by youthful readings of Nostradamus’s prophecies and shaped by early global events when I was a student of Bayero University Kano (BUK). One defining moment was Saddam Husseins 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

As a student writer at the time, I penned a passionate defense of the allied forces backed by Saudi Arabia, condemning Saddams aggression. That article, In Defence of Saudi Arabia, earned me more than a few enemies on campus, including a physical confrontation from my senior, Saka Raji Audu testament to the deep emotions stirred by global politics, even among students.

Looking back, my youthful conviction was both sincere and, in many ways, naive. I hadn’t yet grasped the more insidious realities behind the headlines. In time, a disturbing pattern began to emerge: courageous, independent, non-monarchical leaders in the Arab and broader Muslim world were being systematically weakened or eliminated, not solely by Western powers, but with the silent consent, and sometimes active participation, of Arab monarchies.

A turning point in this awakening came with the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq under the now-debunked claim of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The deafening silence of Arab leaders during this blatant assault on a fellow Arab nation was chilling. Not only was Iraq reduced to rubble, but Saddam Husseinonce courted and financially and militarily backed by these same Arab powers during his eight-year war with Iranwas subjected to a “Kangaroo court” after the killing of his sons.

In my 2004 article, Saddam Trial: The Humiliation of the Arab World, I expressed outrage at the complicity of Arab leaders and their failure to build military and technological capacities despite immense oil wealth. Instead, they remained reliant on foreign powers to protect their regimes, even at the cost of betraying their own.

That outrage deepened after Saddams execution on Eid al-Adhaa sacred day in Islam meant for mercy and reflection. My 2007 piece, Saddam Hanging and Arab Culpability, decried both the timing of the execution and the broader betrayal by Arab leaders who stood idly by while a sovereign nation was dismantled under false pretenses.

Then came the Arab Spring in 2011a movement sparked by the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi in Tunisia. That year, I wrote Arab World: Between Democracy and Monarchy, where I highlighted a paradox: while many self-proclaimed Arab republics had devolved into brutal dictatorships, constitutional monarchies seemed to offer better living standards, stronger economies, and more stable governance. This raised uncomfortable questions: Was democracy truly the answer for the region? Or could a reformed monarchy offer a viable alternative?

Whatever the answer, one thing was clear: monarchical Arab states were selectively silent or actively supportive when the West destroyed nations led by strong, pan-Arab, and pan-African voices.

The 2011 NATO-led invasion of Libya marked another watershed. On the false premise of humanitarian intervention, Western powersagain with the approval or silence of Arab regimestoppled Muammar Gaddafi, a leader who had transformed Libya through free education, healthcare, and massive infrastructure development. Gaddafi was also a formidable voice for African unity and economic independence.

In my article Saddam, Gaddafi and the Arabs An African Perspective, I condemned the Western medias dehumanizing portrayal of their deaths and the Arab worlds cowardly complicity. Libyas destruction triggered a chain reaction: looted arms depots fueled terrorists like Boko Haram and ISWAP, unleashing instability across West Africafrom Nigeria to Mali, Niger to Cameroon.

Yet, refugees and internally displaced people had nowhere to go, while only a few countries could accommodate them. Moved by such hypocrisy, I wrote May Allah Bless Chancellor Merkel of Germany in 2015a tribute to a Christian woman leader who welcomed over a million refugees, many of them Muslims. Her compassion stood in stark contrast to the indifference of some Arab leaders whose actions helped displace their own people.

And Libya was not alone. Syria under Bashar Assad, Lebanon, and Yemennon-monarchical Arab nationshave also suffered immensely. The pattern is clear: when a nation dares to chart an independent path, especially one not aligned with Western or monarchic Arab interests, it becomes a target. Even the plight of the Palestinians, particularly in Gaza, underscores this tragic hypocrisy. Beyond occasional condemnations, Arab monarchies have offered little meaningful support.

The duplicity became more glaring under Donald Trumps presidency. A man known for his erratic, often inflammatory style, Trump cozied up to brutal regimes and abandoned diplomacy. His abrupt cancellation of nuclear talks with Iran, the assassination of a top Iranian general, and aggressive posturing towards nations like China, Canada, and South Africa among others marked a dangerous shift in U.S. foreign policy. His overt support for Israels military aggressionespecially the recent unprovoked strikes on Irancame barely a month after receiving lavish gifts, including a presidential jet, during a state visit to oil-rich Arab nations of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Whats worse? These same Arab leaders, whose nations share the region with Iran, remained conspicuously silent. Only when Iran retaliated by targeting U.S. military bases did they suddenly find their voices. Trumps subsequent announcement of a ceasefire between Israel and Iran revealed the disturbing extent to which global narrativesand potentially even future warsare being shaped by a handful of powers under the guise of diplomacy.

Meanwhile, the loudest voices condemning the attack on Iran were not from the Muslim world, but from the Eastern bloc: Russia, China, among a few others. Most Arab leaders, fearful of offending their Western patrons, chose discretion over solidarity. It is also worth noting that people of consciencemany of them non-Muslim scholars, activists, politicians, and other influential voices, including Nigerias own Femi Fani-Kayodehave been vocal in condemning the unjustifiable atrocities committed against Palestinians and Iranians in the ongoing conflicts orchestrated by Benjamin Netanyahus Israel.

This reinforced one of my earlier reflections on the region: Any Muslim who thinks supporting an Arab is protecting Islam must have a rethink. Islam is not a religion based on ethnicity, tribal marks, geographical location or color of skin. It is a faith rooted in compassion, good conduct, truthfulness, and coexistence. This principle remains urgent today.

The Middle East is being held hostagenot only by Western imperial ambitions but by the cowardice and complicity of Arab monarchies. Until Arab leaders begin to act in the true interest of their people and region, rather than in service to foreign alliances and personal survival, the region will remain in perpetual turmoil.

The time for silent diplomacy and selective outrage is over. What the Middle East needs now is courageous leadershipbold enough to resist manipulation, honest enough to admit past failures, and principled enough to chart a truly independent future.

Yushau A. Shuaib mnipr is the author of Award-Winning Crisis Communication Strategies.
Email: yashuaib@yashuaib.com

REFERENCES:
“In Defence of Saudia Arabia” by YAShuaib 1990
https://yashuaib.com/1990/12/in-defence-of-saudi-arabia/

“Saddam Trial: The Humiliation of the Arab World” by YAShuaib 2004
https://yashuaib.com/2004/07/saddam-trial-the-humiliation-of-the-arab-world/

“Saddam Hanging and Arab Culpability” by YAShuaib2007
https://yashuaib.com/2007/01/saddam-hanging-and-arab-culpability/

“Arab World: Between Democracy and Monarchy” by YAShuaib2011
https://yashuaib.com/2011/03/arab-world-between-democracy-and-monarchy/

“My article titled “Saddam, Ghaddafi and the Arabs An African Perspective” by YAShuaib 2011
https://yashuaib.com/2011/11/saddam-ghaddafi-and-the-arabs-an-african-perspectives/

“May Allah Bless Chancellor Merkel of Germany” by YAShuaib2015
https://yashuaib.com/2015/12/may-allah-bless-chancellor-merkel-of-germany/

The post Reflections: How Arab Monarchies Enable Western Aggression Against Defiant Leaders appeared first on YAShuaib.