Dubai Ports - The Bigger Picture

Bob Elsdale

 

I continue the discussion from my 'The Sum Of All Fears' post.

Let me be clear: I do believe that Dubai Ports (which comprises Dubai Ports Authority (DPA) and DP World) is a well run, highly professional corporation, which has reached the top of its game due to its superior quality of service provided on a daily basis to its many customers coupled with a shrewd and visionary management team.

Size matters.  DP World - United Arab Emirates' (UAE) is one of the leading transshipment centers in the world, serving more than 100 shipping lines. It is ranked 10th amongst the leading container ports of the world and between them, the twin terminals of Jebel Ali and Port Rashid in Dubai handled 14,035 vessels in 2004, including 5,229 container vessels. That compares with 15,377 vessels handled in ALL six ports combined during the same period.

In a nutshell, since their beginning in the 70ies (read the time line), they've managed to cope with extraordinary growth year-on-year, developing and pioneering on the way first rate operational expertise; and they have been able to do so without any legacy constraints unlike most European and American ports. And during the past 6 years they have succeeded to export this expertise to ports around the globe.

The acquisition of P&O Ports, which is also the latest big purchase by Dubai-government-linked firms scouring the globe for assets to invest the Gulf emirate's mountain of oil cash, is thus a logical and strategically smart move and fits perfectly with their approach:

"DPI’s hallmark is its unique ‘integrated port management’ model, which brings together container terminals, other cargoes, free zones, infrastructure developments and consultancy services. Combined with its ‘common user’ status, DPI’s cross-sector expertise offers solutions in all aspects of port operations, ultimately driving efficiency and financial returns for its customers.  DPI has successfully applied the management systems, developed at Port Rashid and Jebel Ali, to its global network of terminal operations.  This enables its customers, to experience the same high level of service they have come to expect when their vessels call at Dubai.
With a flat management structure that is low on bureaucracy and high on entrepreneurial drive and flair, DPI is able to take a much longer-term view than its competitors. It invests in the infrastructure, facilities and people at its operations, to further enhance the customer’s experience and satisfaction, and increase trade.  DPI can completely turn around the performance of ports, rather than just achieve small incremental improvements solely through better management practices."   

Normally this type of language is that of pitching consultants, but from all I can see, DP World are in fact describing what they are already doing. The future is bright for DP World.

HOWEVER.

This is not where the story ends, because DP World, the international arm of Dubai Ports is State Owned. And that inevitably puts the spotlight on the owner and its region. If it were a publicly traded company, irrespective of its nationality, there would be little more to be said. But it's not.

Before I go on though, it is critical to reiterate the necessary clarification on the widely misstated issue of DP World's alleged handling of the Nation's Port Security. P&O Ports never were and neither will its acquirer, DP World manage the ports' security as Power Line points out:

"The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Is Always In Charge Of The Nation’s Port Security, Not The Private Company That Operates Facilities Within The Ports. Nothing will change with this transaction. DHS, along with the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and other Federal agencies, sets the standards for port security and ensures that all port facility owners and operators comply with these standards.

The Transaction Is Not About Port Security Or Even Port Ownership, But Only About Operations In Port. DP World will not manage port security, nor will it own any ports. DP World would take on the functions now performed by the British firm P&O – basically the off- and on-loading of cargo. Employees will still have to be U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. No private company currently manages any U.S. port. Rather, private companies such as P&O and DP World simply manage and operate individual terminals within ports."

That being said, there are two main aspects of this issue. One, the Political and two, the National Security.

Michelle Malkin captures both, the immediate political aspect of this debate when she asks "whether the decision process was thorough and free from conflicts of interest", a question, Michelle deals with in great detail, and the aspect of our National Security, "should [we] grant the demonstrably unreliable UAE access to sensitive information and management plans about our key U.S. ports, which are plenty insecure enough without adding new risks".

I would like to focus on our National Security and in that context on Saudi Arabia as UAE overpowering neighbor--my thesis being, that in order to assess the true nature of Dubai Ports' owner, one needs to understand the dynamics of the region, especially those in Saudi Arabia (leaving Iran aside here, despite obviously being the most notorious neighbor across the Persian Gulf, but at least entirely transparent in its ambitions thanks to the thug-in-chief Ahmadinejad).

I believe, that Saudi Arabia's political situation defines that of the 7 Emirates and their present rulers on a daily basis, and as such, impacts directly on the security risk analysis of DP World's acquisition of P&O Ports. I would also like to say, that it has become clear to me, that this deal will not be stopped, and that the Administration should not only use the additional time given by DP World to sell the deal to us as is, but to explore and formulate safeguards given the extraordinary circumstances and implications surrounding this transaction.

Understanding Saudi Arabia, UAE most influential neighbor, its alliance with the United States and its role in the world of Islamic fundamentalism, has been central to understanding the events of 9/11 and I believe it is a key consideration in the debate about UAE owned Dubai Ports and its acquisition of P&O Ports' operation in our six largest ports (remember, by no means exclusively, but shared with many other port operators, each of whom also lease competing terminals in each port). As we know only too well, like Usama bin Laden, 15 of the 19 suicide hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. We also know, that for a long time there has been significant unrest inside Saudi Arabia, and that our reliance on the Saudis in the fight against terrorism is utterly dependent on the current rulers continued ability to suppress the fundamentalist Islamic uprising--the very foreign policy for the past three decades which caused the radicalisation in the first place.

The WSJ (subscription only but Michelle Malkin has an excerpt at the end of her post) sets the scene when it tells us that "Dubai is believed to have been one of the most important conduits for Iran's nuclear technology acquisition program", echoing U.S. News almost a year ago: "Iran is building a bomb through Dubai" (also via Michelle's excellent links).

Saudi Arabia, just like the 7 Emirates, is a hidden country, a country that works hard to control its public image. The truth is as ever hard to come by. News on the street, how its citizens think and feel, leaks almost only out by word of mouth. One of the few visiting Westerners relayed to the media that on 9/11, drivers on the streets of Riyadh honked their horns in celebration; that people were receiving a message on their mobile phones, "Congratulations"; And then the next message was "Our prayers to Bin Laden". They were very jubilant and happy and were looking at Bin Laden as a hero. People started killing sheep and killing camels and making big feasts and invited their relatives and friends to celebrate the big event in America.

The official version of course was and always is complete denial, as Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. made so bluntly clear at the time: "So when those dissidents come and say, "Well, in Saudi Arabia, really, people were happy about 9/11"- that is bullshit, if you'll pardon my French." But it's not. That sentiment towards us Infidels in the West in general and towards us here in the U.S. in particular won't change, as I have shown many times before--it can't as long as it is part of the core doctrine of Islam. Jihad promoting Imams are making sure of that up and down the country.

But the monarchs and the ruling class, sitting in their ivory towers, stone-wall the issue when addressing the West, endlessly repeating the official version designed to make us all feel warm and fuzzy inside: The relationship with America did not start in 1990, it started in the '30s. And when the Americans came to Saudi Arabia, they didn't come as an invader. They came in the capacity of a private sector, trying to help Saudi Arabia find oil. They found the oil for Saudi Arabia, and they've been its friends ever since.

The foremost target of the widespread Saudi dissidents is Saudi Arabia's monarchy not least because of its friendship with the United States. They look at the U.S. troops stationed there as mercenaries who are defending the royal family and its cronies. And despite their denial, the Saudis are worried because they recognize al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas et al are just as much a threat to their monarchy, to Egypt, to Jordan, and of course to the UAE, as they are to the United States. The clerical leaders want us out of the Middle East so that they can deal with the corrupt regimes that they see in the region, and replace them with pure Islam, with an Islamic republic run by Muslim fundamentalists. And the UAE is the Sodom & Gomorah as far as they are concerned.

Their success in Iran is a daily warning for us and an enormous motivator for them. We can not afford to be complacent or take anything for granted when casually referring to America's chief ally in the Persian Gulf, nor when we refer to the UAE as such. Remember, not so long ago, before Jimmy Carter got caught sleeping at the wheel, he was saying, "Iran, because of the great leadership of the Shah, is an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world." The Saudis watched the Shah closely. They were skeptical when he urged King Faisal in the '60s, late '60s, to modernize. Especially today, they have to constantly balance their domestic interests with those of its chief ally in the West, the U.S. And that is a worrisome conflict of interest, which might lead them to feel compelled to turn yet another blind eye to Jihad wielding faithfuls targeting the West, feeling temporarily relieved to have deflected their zeal away from their own doorstep. Or they could fail, just as the Shah failed, and that would immediately spill over to the UAE.

As to the UAE itself, Front Page published today a detailed reality check:

Not surprisingly, the President threatens to veto any legislation to block the deal and challenges lawmakers to “step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard" than the British company that ran the ports before.

There are many important differences. To begin with, a private company based in the U.K. a Western democracy with troops fighting along with U.S. soldiers in Iraq, contrasts sharply with the UAE, which supported al-Qaeda, sent 9/11 terrorists and funding, and continues to support Palestinian suicide bombers and particularly HAMAS, which President Bush calls “a terrorist organization.”

This is the big picture.

Alex Alexiev via Rick Moran:

From the very beginning in the 1970s, the UAE has been a key source of financial support for Saudi-controlled organizations like the Islamic Solidarity Fund, the Islamic Development Bank (IDB), World Council of Mosques, and the Muslim World League (MWL) as documented in The Muslim World League Journal, an English-language monthly. The IDB alone, for instance, spent $10 billion between 1977 and 1990 for “Islamic activities” and at least $1 billion more recently to support terrorist activities by the Palestinian Al Aqsa and Intifada Funds.

One of the most successful Islamist operations in the U.S. early on involved the Wahhabi ideological takeover of the Nation of Islam after the death of its founder Elijah Muhammad. Of the $4.8 million “presented” to W. D. Muhammad, Elijah’s son and successor, in 1980 alone, one million came from UAE’s president Sheikh Zayad, according to the August 1980 issue of the MWL Journal.

Hugh Hewitt shares my point of view: "In fact I'll listen to any argument that begins with the undeniable --undeniable but not acknowledged-- concession that a change in ownership means a change in the security situation at the six ports."

And its implications for DP World becoming an important operator in our ports, despite the fact, that it is seemingly mundane in scope, must be viewed before a thorough understanding of this bigger picture.

What I am calling for is that the Administration acts preemptively; that it diplomatically, but no less resolutely, contractually conditions DP World and its parent Dubai Ports as well as its owner, UAE, that in the event of terrorist related irregularities occurring on DP World's operations, it will revoke the lease not only at the terminal in question but also all other leases of all other terminals in all six ports. That it warns Dubai Ports to expect unequal treatment because of its higher risk profile. That in the event of a political coup in Saudi Arabia, or more specifically in the UAE, the US Government reserves the right to immediately revoke all leases and close down DB World's operation. In short, that it preempts a public outcry when the going gets tough as to why DB World has been singled out.

In any event Mr.President, you have the best legal advice, why am I the one sitting here trying to figure out what onerous clauses need to be added to this contract. As I say to my own lawyer: "These are the risks I have pointed out to you, and these are the risks you have added, now sort out the contract".

As Ed Morrissey quite rightly points out: "In the end, the increased scrutiny of the deal may be the biggest boon of the debate; we're finally talking about port and border security, and Congress and the Administration is finally listening. I think Krauthammer has it correct that the deal will likely go through; however, we may wind up with better focus and security at our commercial ports as a result of the controversy."

UPDATE: Liquid tells me that the UAE government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported. WND makes it 22.

Newsweek shows us how Dubai has helped us against al-Qaeda. This I have to read.

Hugh Hewitt interviews Robert Kaplan on this.

The Real Ugly American has some great links, including posts from Jay @ Wizbang and Dafydd @ Big Lizards, which are a must read.

So is the post by ex- Chief of the Terrorist Financing Operations Section (TFOS) at the FBI, Dennis Lormell @ The Counterterrorism Blog.

Gina Cobb, who has been on this story from the beginning, has some more news on the pending lawsuits, and Vital Perspective reveals a UAE contribution made to the Bush Library Foundation of $1 mil.

From a man who has had a 50 year relationship with the Saudis.

Check out James @ Coyote Mercury, with very good research and interesting links on the port security issue., with more here.

Related on ATB:
The Sum Of All Fears
Dubai Ports - The Saga Continues
The Road To Allah Paved With Gold

Comments

[MarcH]

Michael Porter,

As a poet, he's a great sheik. I think he should stick with "roses are red ...""

[RL]

jihad poetry, written like a true wahabi muslim-jihadist.

as the Scritpure says,

"You brood of vipers ! How can you speak good, when you
are evil. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth
speaks."
Matthew 12:34
(words of Christ)

"The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces
good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces
evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks."
Luke 6:45
(words of Christ)

Biblegateway.com
(choose your language !)

[Michael Porter]

The ruler of Dubai has a website where his feelings are expressed through poems poems. Since he is a owner of the DP World, it is worth knowing his real passions.

If poetry fails to express the nation's wishes, dreams, hopes and pains, it has no value. Poetry contributed to the progress of the UAE.
Al Khaleej (10 December 2002)
http://www.sheikhmohammed.co.ae/english/index.asp
Words from the Leader of Dubai Sheik Mohammed:

Stand with Justice

Narrated by the youth of Palestine

Pervaded the darkness and pervaded our aggressor
In the camp, faces of death without mercy

Death in our land, my brother, is routine
Like honey, though others taste it as colocynth

Worse than death to mortgage my country
To pawn Al Aqsa and Al Quds, to surrender

Worse than death to bequeath my children
Shame and disgrace that history would proclaim

Yes, I resist with my body, I forge my glories
Glory knows not the lover of dirhams

Glory knows naught but a free calling
For martyrdom, with faith enduring

Whoever seeks victory asleep on pillows
Tell him be sure to dream whilst sleeping

Victory through sacrifice, though flow valleys
If blood flows � no victory without blood

Your money and soul for your country sacrifice
Who does not sacrifice for his country must regret

Oh my people free, oh my people, oh my country
Stand with justice, never will justice be vanquishe

Myself, For Al Aqsa, I Sacrifice

Scorned the faces of the enemy
Whose blood is cold

Myself, for Al Aqsa, I sacrifice
Where the Prophet prostrated

And I raise with my voice the call
Oh, our people steadfast

No matter how long it takes
Al Aqsa to us is returning

A billion Muslims
Their conscience asleep

A billion Muslims, futile
Their influence waning

A billion counted
We need but one

The martyr fell, and seems
Lawless is the hateful

The child for help cries
And death for him lies waiting

And the world watches
Of their aggression a witness

The blood of childhood sang
The melody of glory everlasting

The sound of stones echoes
With promises of victory

With the aggressor began
And the criminal, the infidel

A word of honour
How often said by Zayed*

�Never relinquish the mosque
And for our right we fight�

The midnight journey of the Prophet of guidance
And his ascension to the heavens

Aggression, though strutting
Its end is certain

Triumphs whoever stands firm
And for his right fights

*His Highness Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, President of the UAE.

To the soul of the child martyr, Mohammed Al Durra

Pressed back, without supporter
A child defenceless, confronting aggression

Hiding, the bullets of tyrants
Have no mercy for a child, so young

Seeking shelter, slaughter him the criminals
Savages, whose tyranny never waned

Oh Mohammed, in Paradise of the eternal
Oh Mohammed, your voice reverberates throughout

Oh Mohammed, with you, the God of the Worlds
Whose mercy enfolds you forever

Oh Mohammed, who saw you grieved
And all, if we could, would sacrifice

A thousand million, the Muslims
All for you, Mohammed, fathers

Alas, where is the peace of the just?
The peace you seek is futile

Lost it, without doubt, the usurpers
When allowed their hatred to renew

And boiled the blood of Arabs, East and West
When Sharon visited the mosque

Oh Arabs, comrades for years
Bury that which passed, as became

Our greatest concern, to defend against aggressors
Who against Al Aqsa their aggression began

My nation, would that you unite
In lines, terrified then the enemies

Follow Zayed, the leader of the wise
Who called for unity and initiated

Oh Saladin, oh the greatest conquerors
Oh Omar, oh the dignified and the generous

The state of the nation allures the greedy
We seek naught but unity to satisfy

[MarcH]

Weekenderman,

Thanks for your kind compliment. I enjoyed visiting your blog (http://www.thenoize.net/column/) and reading about your life in the Iowa. My kids were born in Michigan and spent enough time there that they are disappointed with our mediocre East Coast winter.

Although I think you’re on the wrong side of the DPW issue, please don’t further punish yourself by linking your views to James Earl Carter, Jr, ex-President, Nobel Prize Winner and peanut farmer. Instead think of yourself as an ally of Mark Steyn.

I wouldn’t worry too much about Alexandra. She is a gracious and forgiving hostess.

Regards,

MarcH

[weekenderman]

Oh yes, and although I am thrilled to take an opposite view than RL, I am saddened that I'm on the opposite said of the aisle than the lovely Alexandra.

Oh well, I still love her, and I hope she still loves me. :)

[weekenderman]

Good points, MarcH, I am aghast that Jimmy "Peanut Farmer" Carter and I have taken the same stand on this issue. I only hope that my reasons for supporting the President's decision are more sensible, realistic and principled than Carter's.

[MarcH]

It’s interesting that on the Danish cartoon issue Hugh Hewitt and Mark Steyn were split (HH anti-publication, Steyn pro). One could fairly say that on this issue Steyn was farther to the right than Hugh on the anti-Jihadist spectrum. On the other hand, on UAE ports issue (http://www.radioblogger.com/#001412), Steyn is pro-deal and Hugh is anti-deal or straddling. I could, of course, name numerous other respected pundits and bloggers who are also splitting on this issue (I picked Hugh and Steyn because Hugh’s radio program has a great weekly conversation with Steyn).

This is an odd moment in history. A number of issues have arisen to set anti-Jihadist partisans against each other in unpredictable ways. How convenient for Iran.

[MarcH]

Alexandra references the pro-deal post on Counterterrorism Blog (http://counterterror.typepad.com/) of Dennis Lormel. Mr. Lormel, a retired FBI Special Agent, held important positions in the FBI as Section Chief of the Terrorist Financing Operations Section, Counter-Terrorism Division and Section Chief of the White Collar Crime Section of the pre-9/11 Criminal Division. Mr. Lormel is currently an executive with Corporate Risk International (http://corprisk.timberlakepublishing.com/content.asp?contentid=140), a Fairfax, VA based international security consulting firm.

It’s odd that Mr. Lormel didn’t mention that the original deal seemed to allow Dubai Ports World (DPW) an exception to a routine requirement that the companies operating documents be maintained on U.S. soil where they would be accessible to US law enforcement officers without too much trouble via federal grand jury subpoena, administrative subpoena or search warrant) (http://www.caycompass.com/cgi-bin/CFPnews.cgi?ID=1011290). The original deal would apparently allow DPW to maintain its records back at the UAE.

A US based law enforcement officer who wished to access UAE located records of DPW would have to go through a clumsy and time consuming process of requesting the records through the US Department of State via the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty or else rely on a “favor” to the United States from some UAE sultan (which could then be cited as an example of UAE cooperation on counter-terrorism). I expect that the State Department is not going to push for too many “favors” from our allies in the UAE (or from our allies in Saudi Arabia, for that matter).

RL was onto this point in a comment above.

[Semanticleo]

NxNW;
Excuse me for saying so, but it is a little
like "straining out the gnat, but gulping
down the camel" when the overriding issue
boils down to only 5% of the containers
coming into port being inspected.

Here's the response I mentioned earlier;

NXNW;

That has been bothering you all this time?

It's a line the Actor Curt Jergens spoke
to a refugee he was forced to join in his
retreat from the Nazis. He played a Polish
General who was arrogant and felt superior to
the refugee played by Danny Kaye.

To make a long story short, they became good
friends and parted as the General concluded;
"More and more I like this Yacobovsky"

If you require more explanation, Alexandra
is the condescending General and I am Yacobovsky.

I also remember more pleasant exchanges between
us if you care to reminisce in the archives.

Via Con Dios.

Posted by: Semanticleo | Tuesday, February 14, 2006 at 09:52 PM

[North by Northwest]

Semanticleo - must have missed it; still can't find it--on which thread?

As to the port issue: The biggest problem were the misleading headlines falsely touting (1) port security control and (2) port ownership. It took some serious debunking of almost all of the SMS stories until some clarity emerged--and in this case, I believe, that journalists genuinely didn't understand the important distinctions; that this wasn't any intentional spin. However, I think that Alexandra has still hit the nail on the head in her first post:

So all that would happen is, that a Jihad observing Muslim, responsible for the bidding and keenly aware of a dirty nuke hidden in container GTH-US-SATAN-02, lowers the bid, thus hiring equally Jihad observing members of the longshoremen union, who then dutifully and diligently 'handle' this precious cargo--straight to the final destination of the eagerly anticipated 'divine' retribution.

This is in a nutshell where the underbelly is exposed: It is understood, that a dirty bomb or anything chemical will always be loaded in Dubai under false papers and shipped by either clueless or supportive liners. It's the unloading and forwarding that could make things just a bit more complicated. And it doesn't need to be sanctioned by top management; all it needs are a few rotten apples at low level operational levels.

[RL]

Don't "misunderestimate" Alexandra.
She is good at not showing all of her cards.

As far as this deal with the devil is concerned, it looks like
Congress is thankfully going to get their 45 day review-process,
before any further hyper-secretive dealmaking takes place.
Lets hope that all of the facts and the truth is revealed to
the general-public during this process.

the Ukranian nickname for Alexandra is Sasha.
(sounds kinda sassy, ey ?)

: )

[Semanticleo]

Although this whole port controversy is a small
fish in the sea of Port security in toto, it seems
dead because of the politics. Nice
to see some of the edge come off Alexandra's
vehement opposition, albeit after it has been
scuttled by over-reaction.

BTW; NxNW
Your innuendo has been answered some time ago
with no follow up from you. 'Hit and Run'
seems antithetical to your persona.

[David Foster]

N by NW...I understand that there are other terminal operators at the ports; however, 6 major terminals at 6 major ports represents a significant chunk of our overall freight-handling capacity.

[antimedia]

If we're going to place extra scrutiny on DP World's operations, isn't it more than a little disingenuous to ignore the elephant in the room - China? Why wouldn't Chinese operations be scrutinized the same way?

The point is, security of the ports is our concern, and Congress needs to put some teeth into the security, not bloviate about it. Who cares who runs operations if the security sucks?

[RL]

"Bush's Port Jihad"

an interesting read at,

frontpagemag.com

[North by Northwest]

photoncourier - you make a good point about the software; DP Ports certainly make a big splash about their proprietary IT.

However I think you are misunderstanding DP World's role when you are concerned about "deliberate nonperformance, for example, refusal to ship munitions to Israel". The shippers, who carry the cargo are P&O Ports' clients. P&O Ports operation is limited to loading and unloading the cargo. And should they refuse, than there are plenty of other terminals at each port which have been leased by many competing port operators, who would be only too glad to take the business away from P&O Ports, now owned by DP World.

[Alexandra]

David,

Krauthammer suggested:

...give it heightened scrutiny by assigning a team of U.S. government agents to work inside the company at least for the first few years to make sure security is tight and information closely held; (3) have the team report every six months to both the executive and a select congressional committee.

Although UAE foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan stated that the Emirates have been and remain a “strong ally of the U.S. in combating terrorism,” its continuing support of Hamas and other Islamist organizations contradict his statement. This legitimately raises concerns about trusting U.S. ports to UAE management, and technically speaking there is no contract in the world which will protect us against a security breach, if that indeed becomes their wish at any time in the future.

All we can do however is to make sure that we take advantage of the intelligence already available and tailor the deal accordingly, instead of defending the existing lease agreement with the ports, which in view of the information available is inadequate in dealing with the legitimate concerns raised.

Reducing these concerns to simple Islamophobia is less than helpful in the circumstances.

[David Foster]

Mike..what do you see as a distinction between "operating a port" and "operating a terminal"? The terminal operator physically moves the cargo off the vessel and onto the truck or rail chassis.

[RL]

Why has dp world refused to keep any of their paperwork
(analog & digital) in the USA, so that US courts can have
access to them ?

Do they (dp world) have something to hide from US courts ?

NJ port authority has already filed a couple of lawsuits against
the fed. govt. concerning this deal that has its origins in a
dark pit of hell; in a desperate attempt to prevent it from
being a done deal.

Doing big business with the uae is like doing business with
satan himself. This deal stinks like hell (literally).

if it goes through, "Trust, but verify".

[Mike's America]

If you take a further look at the cited Homeland Security report, you will learn that not only would DP not operate or own any ports, but they will only control a handful of terminals at the ports in question.

I'd like to ask how many Arab airlines have gates at American airports in major US cities?

Should we know cut off all Arab investment in the US? Would that make us safer?

[photoncourier.blogspot.com]

The terms & conditions must also address the issue of deliberate nonperformance, for example, refusal to ship munitions to Israel in the event of a major war there.

I would propose a huge surety bond, to be forfeitable in the event of willful nonperformance. This in addition to revocation of the lease agreements.

There should also be attention to transition planning in the event that the US needs to take over terminal operations in a hurry: for example, duplication of key databases in the terminal information systems, and escrow of source code for any proprietary software systems. (The latter is a common feature in commercial software contracts)