عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

The ‘Impossible’ Relationship and History of Disputes between Lebanon’s Aoun, Jumblatt

President Aoun meets with PSP leader Jumblatt at the presidential palace in May 2020. (NNA)
President Aoun meets with PSP leader Jumblatt at the presidential palace in May 2020. (NNA)
TT
TT

The ‘Impossible’ Relationship and History of Disputes between Lebanon’s Aoun, Jumblatt

President Aoun meets with PSP leader Jumblatt at the presidential palace in May 2020. (NNA)
President Aoun meets with PSP leader Jumblatt at the presidential palace in May 2020. (NNA)

The relationship between two of Lebanon’s most influential leaders, head of the Progressive Socialist Party Walid Jumblatt and President Michel Aoun, has always been fraught with tensions and a lack of “chemistry”.

The tensions go back to when Aoun served as army commander during the 1975-90 civil war and peaked ahead of his return to Lebanon from exile in 2005. They have continued to be strained with meetings between Aoun and Jumblatt far and few between ever since 2005.

Ties between Aoun and other Lebanese parties are not any better, but the way in which the Druze leader has chosen to wage his confrontation with the founder of the Free Patriotic Movement has set him apart from the rest. Jumblatt even went so far as to demand that Aoun be ousted as president, before retracting his statement, not for political reasons, but for practical ones, such as the sectarian Lebanese system and the cover provided by Hezbollah to the president – the Iran-backed party’s key Christian ally.

Just two days ago when commenting on Aoun and the FPM – which is now headed by the president’s son-in-law Jebran Bassil - Jumblatt openly declared “I don’t like them and they don’t like me.”

The statement sparked renewed accusations between MPs from Jumblatt and Aoun’s camp.

Impending ‘tsunami’
Going back in history, Jumblatt openly opposed Aoun’s heading of the army and a military cabinet in 1988, even deeming it a declaration of war. Aoun would soon after be exiled to France, during which he and Jumblatt witnessed a brief period of rapprochement.

That was later blown up when Jumblatt warned of an impending “tsunami” when Aoun announced that he would return to Lebanon in 2005. That would mark the beginning of a new phase of ebbs and flows in their relations.

The ties were often strained, with a few attempts at reconciliation and some brief meetings between the two leaders.

The cool relations were reflected in the very few meetings the Druze leader and Aoun have held over the years. They have been limited to official occasions and attempts at maintaining calm between Druze and Christian areas. In fact they can be listed in a short paragraph: Aoun met Jumblatt in al-Chouf in 2010 and took part in a mass service in Deir al-Qamar in 2017 to mark the 16th anniversary of the Mount Lebanon reconciliation. Jumblatt then paid a visit to Aoun at his Beiteddine summer residence and the president then repaid the visit by meeting him at his Mokhtara residence.

This last meeting was only held in wake of the 2019 Qabr Shmoun incident that witnessed clashes between Druze and Christians and threatened to ignite civil strife in the country.

Jumblatt last met Aoun at the presidential palace in May in an attempt to address “differences”, said the PSP leader at the time.

Every time they met, the two officials would talk about reconciliation and calm. But whenever Lebanon approaches a significant political development tensions would boil over again and the digging up of war acts would come up, casting doubt on the possibility that the two leaders would ever truly reconcile.

‘Policy of spite’
Each side of the divide has their own view of the dispute and each accuses the other of corruption.

The PSP believes that Aoun’s term and policies have led Lebanon to its current state of collapse, while the FPM says that Jumblatt is being so critical because he no longer enjoys the role of kingmaker at parliament.

PSP MP Hadi Abou al-Hassan told Asharq Al-Awsat that Aoun and the FPM object to criticism against their performance during the president’s term.

Calamities befell Lebanon ever since Aoun headed the military government and launched his “elimination war” and “war of liberation” in 1988-90, he charged. Both wars cost hundreds of lives and allowed Syria to tighten its grip over Lebanon.

He then returned from exile after striking a deal under the table with the Syrian regime and allied himself with Hezbollah in order to become president, reneging on all of his previous statements and stances.

“We have seen nothing but setbacks, missteps, crises and losses on all levels from him,” said Abou al-Hassan.

“Despite all of this, they (the FPM) claim to pursue reform and accuse everyone of corruption, while they are the most corrupt figures. The problem lies in the policy of spite that they adopt. They say one thing and do the other. This is what caused all attempts at reconciliation and rapprochement between the FPM and PSP to fail,” he stressed, criticizing the movement for questioning the sincerity of the Mount Lebanon reconciliation.

On the other side of the divide, FPM MP George Atallah said the PSP is attacking Aoun and the movement because of the political crisis Jumblatt is enduring.

He rejected all accusations of corruption directed at the president.

“At every turn they verbally attack and defame us because of the current political situation the PSP is going through after Jumblatt lost the influential position he had occupied for years,” he told Asharq Al-Awsat.

“The parliamentary elections returned him to his natural size and he fears being prosecuted for his actions throughout those years,” he added, accusing Jumblatt of corruption.

Abou al-Hassan acknowledged that other forces besides the FPM have led Lebanon to the dire situation it is in right now, “but the movement, its allies and the president are in control and they have seized main ministries.” This includes the energy ministry that they have controlled for ten years and accounts for half of the country’s debts.

As for how long the confrontation between the PSP and FPM will end, Abou al-Hassan said: “We are not keen on pursuing futile disputes, but we cannot remain silent over what is taking place.”

“Reason demands that the president alter his course of action, otherwise be confronted with the need to change this team, starting with him,” he explained. “We realize how difficult this is due to sectarian reasons and the cover Hezbollah provides him.”

Atallah rejects such demands, saying those dreaming of the toppling of the president are “deluded”.

“Our policy will not change because it is based on the firm vision of breaking the entrenched system that the PSP is a part of,” he stated.

Most Viewed

 
 
Features

How Trump and his Advisers Miscalculated Iran’s Response to War

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said the administration “had a strong game plan” before the war broke out. Doug Mills/The New York Times
Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said the administration “had a strong game plan” before the war broke out. Doug Mills/The New York Times
TT
TT

How Trump and his Advisers Miscalculated Iran’s Response to War

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said the administration “had a strong game plan” before the war broke out. Doug Mills/The New York Times
Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said the administration “had a strong game plan” before the war broke out. Doug Mills/The New York Times

By Mark Mazzetti, Tyler Pager, Edward Wong

On Feb. 18, as President Trump weighed whether to launch military attacks on Iran, Chris Wright, the energy secretary, told an interviewer he was not concerned that the looming war might disrupt oil supplies in the Middle East and wreak havoc in energy markets.

Even during the Israeli and US strikes against Iran last June, Wright said, there had been little disruption in the markets. “Oil prices blipped up and then went back down,” he said.

Some of Trump’s other advisers shared similar views in private, dismissing warnings that — the second time around — Iran might wage economic warfare by closing shipping lanes carrying roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply.

The extent of that miscalculation was laid bare in recent days, as Iran threatened to fire at commercial oil tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic choke point through which all ships must pass on their way out of the Arabian Gulf.

In response to the Iranian threats, commercial shipping has come to a standstill in the Gulf, oil prices have spiked, and the Trump administration has scrambled to find ways to tamp down an economic crisis that has triggered higher gasoline prices for Americans.

The episode is emblematic of how much Trump and his advisers misjudged how Iran would respond to a conflict that the government in Tehran sees as an existential threat.

Iran has responded far more aggressively than it did during last June’s 12-day war, firing barrages of missiles and drones at US military bases, cities in Arab nations across the Middle East, and on Israeli population centers.

US officials have had to adjust plans on the fly, from hastily ordering the evacuation of embassies to developing policy proposals to reduce gas prices.

After Trump administration officials gave a closed-door briefing to lawmakers on Tuesday, Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, said on social media that the administration had no plan for the Strait of Hormuz and did “not know how to get it safely back open.”

Inside the administration, some officials are growing pessimistic about the lack of a clear strategy to finish the war. But they have been careful not to express that directly to the president, who has repeatedly declared that the military operation is a complete success.

Trump has laid out maximalist goals like insisting that Iran name a leader who will submit to him, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have described narrower and more tactical objectives that could provide an off-ramp in the near term.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said the administration “had a strong game plan” before the war broke out, and vowed that oil prices would drop after it ended.

“The purposeful disruption in the oil market by the Iranian regime is short term, and necessary for the long-term gain of wiping out these terrorists and the threat they pose to America and the world,” she said in a statement.

This article is based on interviews with a dozen US officials, who asked for anonymity to discuss private conversations.

‘Show Some Guts’

Hegseth acknowledged on Tuesday that Iran’s ferocious response against its neighbors caught the Pentagon somewhat off guard. But he insisted that Iran’s actions were backfiring.

“I can’t say that we anticipated necessarily that’s exactly how they would react, but we knew it was a possibility,” Hegseth said at a Pentagon news conference. “I think it was a demonstration of the desperation of the regime.”

Trump has displayed growing frustration over how the war is disrupting the oil supply, telling Fox News that oil tanker crews should “show some guts” and sail through the Strait of Hormuz.

Some military advisers did warn before the war that Iran could launch an aggressive campaign in response, and would view the US-Israeli attack as a threat to its existence. But other advisers remained confident that killing Iran’s senior leadership would lead to more pragmatic leaders taking over who might bring an end to the war.

When Trump was briefed about risks that oil prices could rise in the event of war, he acknowledged the possibility but downplayed it as a short-term concern that should not overshadow the mission to decapitate the Iranian regime. He directed Wright and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to work on developing options for a potential spike in prices.

But the president did not speak publicly about these options — including political risk insurance backed by the US government, and the potential of US Navy escorts — until more than 48 hours after the conflict started. The escorts have not yet taken place.

As the conflict has roiled global markets, Republicans in Washington have grown concerned about rising oil prices damaging their efforts to sell an economic agenda to voters ahead of the midterm elections.

Trump, both publicly and privately, has been arguing that Venezuelan oil could help solve any shocks coming from the Iran war. The administration announced on Tuesday a new refinery in Texas that officials said could help increase oil supply, ensuring that Iran does not cause any long-term damage to oil markets.

A Potential Off-Ramp

Trump has said both that the war could go on for more than a month and that it was “very complete, pretty much.” He also said the United States would “go forward more determined than ever.”

Rubio and Hegseth, however, appear to have coordinated their messaging for now on three discrete goals that they began laying out in public remarks on Monday and Tuesday.

“The goals of this mission are clear,” Rubio said at a State Department event on Monday before Trump held his own news conference. “It is to destroy the ability of this regime to launch missiles, both by destroying their missiles and their launchers; destroy the factories that make these missiles; and destroy their navy.”

The State Department even laid out the three goals in bullet-point fashion, and highlighted a video clip of Rubio stating them on an official social media account.

The presentation by Rubio, who is also the White House national security adviser, appeared to be setting the stage for the president to bring an end to the war sooner rather than later. In his news conference, Trump boasted of how the US military had already destroyed Iran’s ballistic missile capability and its navy. But he also warned of even more aggressive action if Iranian leaders tried to cut off the world’s energy supply.

Matthew Pottinger, who was a deputy national security adviser in the first Trump administration, said in an interview that Mr. Trump had indicated he could decide to pursue ambitions war goals that would take weeks at least.

“In his press conference, I could hear him circling back to a rationale for fighting a bit longer given that the regime is still signaling it won’t be deterred and is still trying to control the Strait of Hormuz,” said Pottinger, now the chair of the China program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a group that advocates a close US partnership with Israel and confrontation with Iran.

“He doesn’t want to have to fight a ‘sequel’ war,” Pottinger added.

The search for pathways out of the war has gained urgency since the weekend, as global oil prices surge and as the United States burns through costly munitions.

Pentagon officials said in recent closed-door briefings on Capitol Hill that the military used up $5.6 billion of munitions in the first two days of the war alone, according to three congressional officials. That is a far larger amount and munitions burn rate than had been publicly disclosed. The Washington Post reported on the figure on Monday.

Iranian officials have remained defiant, saying they will use their leverage over the world’s oil supply to force the United States and Israel to blink.

“Strait of Hormuz will either be a Strait of peace and prosperity for all,” Ali Larijani, Iran’s top national security official, said in a social media post on Tuesday. “Or it will be a Strait of defeat and suffering for warmongers.”

The New York Times

Features

Saudi Flag Narrative Centers on Justice, Security

Saudi flag’s profound symbolism reflects unity, justice, strength and prosperity (SPA)
Saudi flag’s profound symbolism reflects unity, justice, strength and prosperity (SPA)
TT
TT

Saudi Flag Narrative Centers on Justice, Security

Saudi flag’s profound symbolism reflects unity, justice, strength and prosperity (SPA)
Saudi flag’s profound symbolism reflects unity, justice, strength and prosperity (SPA)

Ensuring a certain level of security is not difficult for any state, regardless of its system of governance. Security, understood here as the preservation of order, can exist under many political systems. History shows that numerous authoritarian governments have succeeded in imposing strict security on their societies.

The real question, however, lies not in the existence of security but in its nature and its source. The issue is whether the desired security is that of authority imposed by force, or that of justice arising from a system of values and a fair legal order.

Security under authoritarian systems is often superficial, enforced through mechanisms of control, surveillance and punishment. It is inherently fragile because it relies on fear rather than consent, and deterrence rather than justice. Such security remains vulnerable to disruption at the first shift in the balance of power or legitimacy, as many historical examples demonstrate.

By contrast, another form of security is more stable and enduring, the security that stems from justice. This emerges when society believes that the rule governing it is fair and that the authority enforcing it is subject to a higher reference rather than an unchecked will.

National flags often reflect a country’s identity, principles and values, as well as the orientation of its political or intellectual systems. They may also contain symbols carrying religious, historical or cultural significance.

The flag of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia stands apart not only for its color and symbols but also for its meanings and implications. It reflects the state’s deep-rooted history, embodies its identity and represents the values and principles on which it was founded.

Saudi Flag Day, observed annually on March 11, highlights the close bond between Saudis and their national banner and reflects their pride in their identity.

Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman bin Abdulaziz has said that celebrating Flag Day affirms pride in national identity and in the flag’s historical symbolism and deep meanings that embody the country’s constants and represent a source of pride in its history.

He has also said that the Saudi state was founded by its forefathers on the principles of monotheism, justice and unity under one banner, a foundation that brought security and prosperity.

Saudi researcher and historian Dr. Abdullah Al-Munif said the Saudi flag is not merely a sovereign symbol of the state but also an expression that carries deep significance for the state’s philosophy and vision for life and society.

“The green color, which symbolizes Islam and prosperity, reflects support for a state founded on an Islamic approach with a commitment to justice and to spreading security in its comprehensive sense,” he said.

“The phrase ‘There is no god but God, Muhammad is the Messenger of God’, inscribed in Arabic, highlights the enduring foundation upon which the state stands and affirms its commitment to an approach that does not deviate from this reference as a basic guide for governance and politics.”

He added that the sword, which symbolizes strength and the pursuit of justice, reflects the state’s effort to protect the path it believes is right, with the aim of spreading justice and establishing security across the country.

“These three elements are not merely formal components but form a precise equation linking justice and security in a cause-and-effect relationship,” he said.

“The Islamic approach represents the spiritual and social foundations of the state that seeks to achieve justice and stability, ensure security and provide an environment suitable for promoting what is right.”

In this sense, the Saudi flag becomes a symbol of the dynamic interaction among the components of the state. The state seeks to achieve security as a necessity for establishing and spreading what is right, while also pursuing justice and stability as the basis for comprehensive security and sustainable prosperity.

The Saudi flag can therefore be read historically as more than a sovereign symbol. It symbolizes the state’s vision. The three elements that compose it, the green color, the inscription and the sword, reflect a precise equation between justice and security in a cause-and-effect relationship.

Legal expert Dr. Fahd Al-Tarisi said the phrase at the center of the flag represents the system’s supreme reference.

“It is a clear declaration that the justice on which governance is based is not the product of a temporary political will but rests on a fixed religious reference,” he said.

“The presence of this phrase at the center of the flag therefore means that law and justice derive their source from a higher system of values rather than from political authority alone.”

He added that the sword placed beneath the phrase does not symbolize violence or domination but rather the authority to enforce justice.

“Every legal system needs power to protect it and ensure respect for it, otherwise it remains merely text,” he said. “The sword therefore symbolizes the power that protects the principle, not the power that replaces it.”

He said the placement of the sword beneath the phrase reflects a symbolic order in which power serves justice rather than replacing it.

The green color that fills the flag, historically associated in Islamic culture with calm, stability and reassurance, can symbolize the social security that emerges when justice prevails in political and legal systems.

In this reading, the symbolism of the Saudi flag presents a clear equation: the reference establishes justice, power protects that justice, and from this arises the security and stability of society.

This distinction highlights two types of security: the security of authority, imposed by force and often present in authoritarian systems, and the security of justice, which arises naturally when the rules governing society are fair and enjoy moral and legal legitimacy.

Within this framework, the symbolic structure of the Saudi flag presents a clear vision of the state. Security is not the starting point but the result. The cause that leads to it is justice protected by legitimate power within a stable reference.

In that sense, the flag becomes more than a national emblem. It becomes a visual expression of a philosophy of governance that sees true stability not as something built on fear but as the outcome of justice that produces security.

For Saudis, the flag reflects the needs and aspirations of the Saudi citizen, summarized in the values of justice, stability, security and prosperity.

In celebrating Flag Day, Saudis celebrate a nation that sees its strength in unity, a leadership that places service to its people among its top priorities, and a banner under which people and leadership have stood together for centuries.

Features

Researcher Owns 100 Rare Flags From Saudi State Eras

Saudi researcher Adnan Al-Tarif poses with two Saudi state flags (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Saudi researcher Adnan Al-Tarif poses with two Saudi state flags (Asharq Al-Awsat)
TT
TT

Researcher Owns 100 Rare Flags From Saudi State Eras

Saudi researcher Adnan Al-Tarif poses with two Saudi state flags (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Saudi researcher Adnan Al-Tarif poses with two Saudi state flags (Asharq Al-Awsat)

Saudi Arabia marked Flag Day on March 11 for the fourth consecutive year, following a royal order issued on March 1, 2023, designating the date as an annual celebration of the national flag, whose current form was approved in 1937 by King Abdulaziz.

Saudi researcher Adnan Al-Tarif, who owns around 100 flags, says one of the most notable pieces in his collection is the original banner of the First Saudi State, along with dozens of other flags used during later phases of the Saudi state across its three historical eras.

According to historical sources, the banner that Al-Tarif proudly owns — and keeps in a bank vault to protect it from damage, loss, or theft — was “a green banner made of khazz and ibraism (the finest types of silk), bearing the phrase ‘There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah’ in Arabic, and attached to a simple pole.”

The banner remained in that form during the reigns of Imam Muhammad bin Saud, founder of the First Saudi State, followed by his son, Imam Abdulaziz bin Muhammad, his son, Imam Saud bin Abdulaziz, and his son, Imam Abdullah bin Saud.

A banner that was never defeated

Al-Tarif said the first Saudi banner was raised in 1727 by the founding imam Muhammad bin Saud, whose rule lasted 40 years. The banner was either carried by him or entrusted to one of his sons.

Citing the historian Ibn Bishr, Al-Tarif said that Imam Abdulaziz bin Muhammad, the second ruler of the First Saudi State, and his son, Imam Saud, would send messengers to tribal leaders specifying a date and meeting point at a particular water source. The banner would be raised there in advance, and no tribal chief would fail to attend.

Ibn Bishr also wrote that Imam Saud “was granted success in his campaigns, and no banner of his was ever defeated.”

When Ibn Bishr described the life of Imam Turki bin Abdullah, founder of the Second Saudi State, he said that, when preparing for a campaign, Turki would write to the princes of towns and tribal leaders, specifying a time and place for assembly.

Military equipment, army supplies, and horse fodder would be sent out 15 days before departure. The banner would then be raised near the palace gate a day or two before the campaign began.

Imam Turki ordered the banner to be carried ahead of him, and his son Faisal later followed the same system of presenting or raising the banner before the palace.

Three centuries of development

Al-Tarif said the Saudi flag — also referred to as the banner or bayraq — has flown in green for three centuries, passing through several stages before settling into its final form in the later years of King Abdulaziz’s reign.

He also cited accounts from travelers and Orientalists who wrote about the Saudi banner.

During the height of the British-French rivalry, Domingo Badía y Leblich, a Spanish traveler later revealed to be a spy, pretended to convert to Islam and traveled under the name Ali Bey al-Abbasi to study the Saudi state.

He arrived in Makkah in January 1807, traveling from Morocco through North Africa, and witnessed the entry of Imam Saud’s army into the city.

He recorded that 45,000 followers of Saud, dressed in the garments of pilgrimage, entered to perform the rites, led by a green flag embroidered with large white letters reading “There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.”

Meanwhile, Swiss traveler Johann Ludwig Burckhardt, who adopted the name Ibrahim Abdullah after converting to Islam, wrote in observations from his travels in the East around 1810 about the military affairs of Imam Saud bin Abdulaziz bin Muhammad bin Saud and his authority across the Arabian Peninsula.

He noted that each prince had his own banner, and that Saud had several.

A new form of the flag

Al-Tarif said King Abdulaziz initially used the same banner employed during the first and second Saudi states before introducing modifications.

Writer Amin Al-Rihani recorded that the banner carried by King Abdulaziz early in his reign had a white section near the pole and a green section, and was square in shape, bearing the phrase “There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah” in Arabic, with two crossed swords above it.

Its design later changed to include one sword beneath the inscription.

In 1925, King Abdulaziz ordered the creation of a new flag design. In 1937, the Shura Council approved official dimensions of 150 centimeters in length and 100 centimeters in width.

In the same year, decisions were issued concerning official flags, including those of the king, crown prince, army, air force, internal flag, royal naval flag, and merchant naval flag.

In 1952, the Shura Council issued decisions introducing other measurements and modifications. In 1973, the Council of Ministers approved the national flag law.

Later, during the reign of King Fahd, the Basic Law of Governance issued in 1991 defined the nature of the flag: green in color, with a width equal to two-thirds of its length, bearing the phrase “There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah” with a sword beneath it.

A unique case

Al-Tarif said the symbolism of the current flag reflects guidance, justice, strength, growth, and prosperity.

The Islamic declaration of faith symbolizes the message of peace and Islam upon which the kingdom was founded. The sword represents strength, unity, wisdom, and security. The green color reflects the banner of Islam and symbolizes peace, generosity, tolerance, and water, while white symbolizes purity associated with Saudi Arabia.

He said the Saudi flag is unique, as it is the only flag that is never lowered to half-mast during mourning or disasters, and it cannot be used for advertising or commercial trademarks.

The flag must not touch the ground or water, be taken into impure places, or be sat upon. It also does not bow to guests during honor-guard ceremonies or mourning periods, according to Article 16 of the flag law, which also sets penalties for violations.

Families who carried the banner

In the First Saudi State, the banner was carried by Ibrahim bin Tuq and Abdullah Abu Nahiyah, who was killed during the siege of Diriyah in 1818.

In the Second Saudi State, it was carried by Al-Humaidi bin Salama, Saleh bin Hadyan, and Ibrahim Al-Dhafiri.

Under King Abdulaziz, the first to carry the banner was Abdul Latif Al-Maashouq during the recapture of Riyadh in 1902. He later took part in subsequent battles and was killed in the Battle of Bukayriyah in 1904.

His son Mansour Al-Maashouq then carried the banner and was killed in the same battle.

Afterward, Abdulrahman bin Mutrif and his sons assumed the role.

To this day, the responsibility of carrying the banner has been entrusted to the Al-Mutrif family, although many individuals and families have been honored to carry the Saudi flag in various battles and locations.

Sewing and calligraphy

Regarding the making of the flag, Al-Tarif cited historian Abdulrahman Al-Ruwaished, who wrote that sewing and writing the flag were entrusted to individuals from well-known families in Riyadh, including Abdullah bin Mohammed bin Shaheen and Saad bin Saeed.

Bin Saeed handled the preparation of the materials used for the flag, though he did not personally sew it.

Some documents indicate that King Abdulaziz tasked Sheikh Abdulrahman Al-Tubaishi with purchasing and securing certain materials for the banner.

Later in his reign, flags were manufactured in several countries using fabric-on-fabric techniques in the United States, Pakistan, and some Arab countries.

Among the earliest calligraphers of the Saudi flag during King Abdulaziz’s era was Sheikh Omar Asim Al-Hasani, from Al-Jumum in Wadi Fatimah near Makkah, who had worked in Kuwait at Al-Mubarakiyah School and later became its director.

He also wrote the script for the old Kuwaiti flag bearing the word “Kuwait.”

He was asked to inscribe the Saudi flag around 1911.

When King Abdulaziz ordered the opening of the Kiswah factory for the Kaaba in 1926, one of the first workers was calligrapher Abdul Rahim Amin Abdullah Bukhari, who was tasked with writing the inscriptions on the Kaaba’s covering and designing the calligraphy for its door.

He was also asked to write the Saudi flag and its decorative elements in Arabic Thuluth script.

Rare collections

Al-Tarif said one of the most notable parts of his collection is Saudi flags.

“I thank God that among my most prominent possessions are Saudi flags. I own more than 100 old and rare flags of different sizes, shapes, materials, and historical periods, including flags from the First and Second Saudi States that were used during campaigns to establish unity and security in this blessed land,” he said.

He said he also collected flags used during events attended by King Abdulaziz, including flags used on the king’s car.

His collection includes flags from the era of King Saud, as well as flags used during King Faisal’s visit to the United States in 1945, and others from the reigns of King Khalid and King Fahd during foreign visits.

Among the most important items he owns is the flag placed between King Fahd and King Salman bin Abdulaziz during a ceremony honoring King Saud when he assumed power in 1953.

Al-Tarif said he documented the flags through photographs and examined them at major international centers to verify their authenticity. They were also verified by individuals historically tasked with carrying the banner, including members of the Al-Mutrif family, as well as through the finials placed atop flagpoles.

He said he owns more than 10 finials made of silver, copper, and other metals used during the reign of King Abdulaziz, along with a rare document stamped by King Abdulaziz seven years after entering Riyadh, related to details about the Saudi flag.

Museums and heritage

Al-Tarif said that during his research career, he also established three private museums dedicated to camels, horses, and falcons, containing rare pieces, some of which are more than 300 years old.

He has also collected postage stamps related to these subjects from countries around the world, as well as newspaper articles published since 1850, photographs dating back more than 100 years, and museum artifacts, including utensils, incense burners, coffee pots, clocks, and license plates from the reigns of King Abdulaziz, King Saud, King Faisal, and King Khalid.

His collection also includes telephones used in royal palaces from the era of the founding king through later Saudi monarchs.

Diplomatic tensions over the flag

Al-Tarif also recounts an incident involving Saudi Arabia’s refusal to lower its flag following the death of King Faisal I of Iraq, which angered the British.

He said that after Sheikh Ibrahim bin Muammar was appointed Saudi minister plenipotentiary to Iraq in 1923, shortly after the Saudi legation opened in Baghdad, the appointment reflected the Saudi king’s confidence in his abilities.

Large Saudi communities lived in Iraq at the time, and Arab tribes inhabited the border regions between the two countries. Among his duties were caring for Saudi nationals, overseeing the implementation of newly signed border agreements, and managing arrangements for pilgrims traveling to perform the Hajj.