WSJ: Gulf States Led by Saudi Arabia Changing Attitude Towards Israel

Some people simply love adventure holidays and the adrenaline rush ...

Sorry, bad joke, I know!

 

Really?

Mmmh ... interesting why the USA is then blaming Iran for many things to be evil things over all the decades since 1979 when KSA did right the same as for example having Sharia as law etc. Mmmmh....
So only one example more for this "as far as you have your nose deep enough in Wahsington's a**, we US oversee such things of course"?

And right we both had still an intensive discussion about Yemen and the rule of Saudi Arabia there. I won't have part #02 now of it, you have your opinion and point of view ... I have my own about. But ask yourself why KSA blocks any investigations of the UN of their actions in Yemen, if there is nothing to hide by them?

 

Yemen is a disaster. KSA has been trying to keep suicide bombers out of Arabia for 15 years. KSA hasn't blocked any investigations. Aside from Yemen being impoverished and pretty lawless outside the capital for 40 years, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram moved into Yemen about 15 years ago and the country is awash in guns. Some Somali pirates have also moved in.

Iran wants to control the Bab al Mandab and the Straits of Hormuz. I think their government is crazy.. but they have for years worked to incite violence in Bahrain and the Eastern province. .. since the 1950s.

 

Yeah ... you still wrote this all in the past and I still say that is all not this way correct and you exclude several circumstances too. Anyway .. as told, no desire of a new discussion about, because will bring no result what is more as an argument clash

 

Then you just don't know any better. Before 2000 there was kidnapping for ransom in Yemen. They rarely killed anyone. But, now with AQ and the Al Houthis and Boko Haram, Yemen is far poorer and more violent.

Remember the embassy bombings about 5 years ago?

Now they are shooting Russian missiles into Jizan and Najran and almost blew up the new stadium in Jeddah.

Remember the suicide bomber from Yemen ... his brother stuck a charge up his butt and he detonated it blowing himself in half in front of Prince Naysef.

 

Forget I Margot! We still had this BS in the past. I still told you that Saudi Arabia has bad history with Yemen and acting there like a colony power since ever! I still gave you example for it, which you of course rated as wrong!
No one denies that Yemen is messed up like mad, but never forget cause and effect spill which is endless here and goes back for many decades!

And remember from where half of Al Qaeda leadership wit Osama in head was coming from! Remember the Air Strike on the funeral with 130 killed civilians done by whom?

So forget it ... you say that I don't know it better and I say you don't know it better. What now?

 

KSA has built hospitals and colleges in Yemen and propped them up since the 1960s. Lots of Saudis invested in factories in Yemen to create jobs. They also provided Yemen with tons of foreign aid. Just last year they provided 500 million in aid to Yemen.

Air strikes happen .. and sometimes they don't hit the right target. That's happened to the US as well.

Who is it that you want people to hate?

 

While I agree SA doesn't endorse exportation of terrorism at the state level there are individuals of the royal family which do finance terrorism for jihad including designs to destroy Israel.

 

No there aren't.. None of the al Saud would fund terrorist groups that want them dead.

KSA has NO desire to destroy Israel.. NONE. They never have. The have offered a peace agreement that would guarantee Israel's security as well as trade and diplomatic relations in return for peace in Palestine. Have you ever read the Saudi Peace Initiative? 21 Arab states signed on for it.

Israelis NOT the center of the universe.. and KSA is too busy developing their country to screw around with Israel.

 

In what way exactly? I see very few ways in which an "alliance" between Israel and the Saudis can take shape. The Israelis and Saudis have some interests in common, that's for sure. Neither of them want turmoil in the region, especially Egypt, and both are wary of Iran's growing power. Neither of them is going to support the same extra-territorial groups, neither of them is going to bomb Iran, and I don't even think they'd be willing to share intelligence with one another. The Israelis only have two real usable strengths: An air force and a well-run spy network. The Saudis have a single usable strength: Money.

They also don't share the same long-term overall interests. The Saudis hate the fact that Israel exists, partially because they're Wahhabist fanatics but mostly because Israel is destabilizing to the politics of the entire region, and the Saudis fear instability above all else. The Israelis look at the Saudis as a lesser of two evils in the short term (though they, like the West, see the Saudis as an existential threat on ideological grounds).

 

You don't think so? You think that if the Army of Conquest in Syria, by some miracle, came out on top of the civil war that their foreign relations would consist of good relations with the US, the Saudis, or the Israelis? No way. The fact of the matter is that the ideology spread by Saudi Arabia actually delegitimizes the Saudis themselves. Al-Qaeda and the Saudis were never going to get along, ISIS and the Saudis were never going to get along, yet both of those groups are born of an ideology spread by the Saudis.

The Saudis have a remarkably unwise policy of clinging to stability in the short term while sowing the seeds of their own demise with petrodollars.

I believe that the Saudis really would defend Israeli interests for such a deal, but one can understand why an Israeli would be unwilling to take that risk. If you told most Israelis that an Arab coalition could be given control of Palestinian security and that this coalition would never pose a threat to Israel they would be jumping for joy (again, most). But that kind of guarantee is impossible, and that's the obvious difficulty here.

 

There are members of the RF who fund jihad. Fact. I never said the Family endorsed terrorism. You're over reading what I said. Nor do I believe the RF wants Israel gone. They've never stated so publicly. But you can't be serious about denying not one member of the RF wants jihad. Certainly more money outside the RF supports it.

KSA is not our enemy per se but it is foolish to believe they are our great ally. Right now they ally with the US and Israel because they all fear Iran more than anything else now. Of course as long as we buy oil from them we will on the face of it work together as it has been for many years.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-middle-east-allies-explore-arab-military-coalition-1487154600

See also,
http://uk.businessinsider.com/saudi-arabia-and-israel-anti-iran-alliance-2017-2?r=US&IR=T

The Israelis, intrinsically, are not and have never been a status quo power. The Saudis used to be a status quo sidekick in the not so distant past. But they are not anymore.

The contours of the policy agenda they have been following with their allies in the US establishment goes back to the Bush administration to circa 2006-07 period.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection

The US itself was largely a status quo power during the many years where its main focus was its policy of "containment" against the Soviet Union, seeing instability in all but the few areas which are under direct or indirect Soviet influence as a threat to its interests. After the neocons and the Bush administration, and then continuing ever since even after the neocons themselves were sidelined, the US has been the greatest source of instability in the region as it has pursued various permutations of the Project for a New American Century. Basically, the edifice of the America's foreign policy after the rise of the neocons, but then continuing even under Obama under slightly adjusted contours, has been premised on an alliance formed between pro Israeli groups in the US and the military industrial complex, with both of these groups having their share of influence on both the Republican and Democratic parties. Hence, with some minor differences, the actual policies aren't all that different within the context of the two party establishment in the US. And Trump, despite his rhetoric against the establishment and the fact that he isn't really a part of it in other ways, nonetheless follows the same script due to his professed devotion to Israel, his view of the Saudis as a cash cow that can be squeezed for now, and his attempts to build his own connections with the military industrial complex.

 

Those are headlines brother. A quick perusal of those articles shows that the Israelis and Saudis are not openly working in tandem, only in parallel.

I don't doubt that they're secretly communicating, but open collusion is politically impossible for the Saudis. My point isn't that Saudis and Israelis have no interests in common, or might not act in parallel and occasionally even directly together. My point is that calling it an "alliance" is really stretching the meaning of the term.

I strongly disagree with that statement. The Israelis were content with Mubarak, Assad, the Hashemites, and probably even Saddam.

The only countries that the Israelis actively want to change the politics of are Palestine and Lebanon.

The status quo wasn't lost by Saudi intervention (in the short term, anyways), they're simply trying to scramble together an outcome that they view as more suitable. I'm willing to bet that the Saudis were just as afraid of the "Arab Spring" as Assad or Mubarak.

Certainly not going to argue with you there, though I really do believe that Obama genuinely wanted to get out of the region, to disastrous effect.

You argue that American policies are somewhat continuous because some special interests control American politics. I believe that American policies are somewhat (and I really stress the whole "somewhat" part here) continuous is because national leaders typically find themselves faced with situations in which there really aren't many good options.

And I really doubt that Trump views the Saudis as a cash cow. I suspect that his advisors are desperately trying to keep him from retaliating against the Saudis, who gave a lot of money to Hillary. He is a remarkably vindictive man.


As an aside, are you Iranian or just someone interested in Iranian politics?

 

Saudi Arabia did expel their Palestinian population.
My pharmacist and his family among them.
One excuse was Palestinians occupied educated positions such as pharmacist, doctors, etc.

Gotta go, guests, ttfn

 

So the Saudis play Obama like a chump and create the worst humanitarian crisis in modern ME history in Syria by financing terrorists as did we

Now theyre making efforts to bribe Trump with billions in infrastructure and investments. Fortunately not much will come out of that for them but we will gain. Provided we don't sell them any more key infrastructure.

And apparently playing nice with Israel too..maybe to play up to Trump? They took a big hit in Syria.

I like Iranians but God their leadership is almost as nutty as NKs.Theyll be announcing they have the bomb soon and it will really hit the fan.

Sigh I really do wish we could just cut KSA off. Allies against terrorism indeed. Snorts. They are the terrorists. If your paying for it you are one too. Just rich ones and masters of manipulation

Yes I detest them. Not hate. Hate is personal. I find their actions detestable.

 

It doesn't matter what you term it; the two sides coordinate their policies informally (and sometimes directly) through a common network they have developed in the US.
As for having no interests in common, at the moment they are both obsessed with and fixated with Iran. And that gives them both something to work on together. Besides, both are allied to the same military industrial complex in the US. A military industrial complex that needs the pro Israeli driven PNAC and similar projects to feed its coffers with the billions poured into it and which also has great interest in selling the Saudis all their toys on the premise of "containing Iran". The Saudis, after all, have a military budget that is the 3rd largest in the world, after only the US and China and are the world's top importer of weapons.

A regime whose ideology, existence, and expansion, is premised on the idea that "Jews" have a right to land that is inhabited by other people (in the case of Palestine, Arabs/Muslims) doesn't have any true friends in the Middle East but plays "divide and conquer" and picks temporary sides based on such calculations. When secular Arab nationalist groups and states, represented by various regimes in the Arab world and the PLO, formed the front line in the fight against Israel, the Israelis covertly support Islamist movements. Of course, once the Israelis pretty much neutralized the threat from the secular Arab states and groups which had lined up against them, and what remained against them was the Iranian led "axis of resistance" (Iran, Assad's Syria and Hezbollah), the latter became the main enemy and the new temporary friends were the enemies of the axis of resistance. But Israel cannot have any true allies in the region, any more than its present alliance with Wahhabi Arabia isn't anything more than a marriage of convenience.

Obama, while personally not comfortable with the neocon driven agendas, wasn't getting the US out of the region in places like Syria! Indeed, he allowed those who were beholden to the same neocon agenda and interest groups to turn Syria and other places into a mess. Syria, in particular, was thrown into chaos as a result of direct US intervention and policies aimed at removing the Assad regime. This piece, by one of the world's preeminent scholars and influential economists, Jeffrey Sachs, tells you all you need to know about it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-clinton-and-the-s_b_9231190.html
Hillary Clinton and the Syrian Bloodbath

My view quickly:
1- The continuous elements in US policy arise from the interests groups that influence US policy and the fact that those policies, once established, earn a life of their own in defining US foreign policy.
2- Trump has no real love or interest in Saudi Arabia, but does see them as a cash cow and has been having "wonderful" meetings with the Wahhabis for some time. The Wahhabis might have preferred Hillary, but ultimately like some of the pro Israeli groups, maintained connections and ties to both camps.
3- I am Iranian and live in Iran.

 

I think it's quite a stretch to blame "the Saudis" for the current crisis. The Arab world has been politically broken not just since WW1, but since the assassination of Uthman in the 7th Century. The problem is that Islam is so vital to the Arab national identity, Islam is the core of their national identity, and Islam is a relatively political religion. This places non-Sharia political unit in the Arab world on shaky ground. if you believe that the Saudis were able to orchestrate protests from Tunisia to Iraq you're really overestimating their reach. Their influence in the Syrian catastrophe has been negligible. Yemen is a different story, of course.

And the Iranian leadership isn't as nutty as you think. A developed nuclear program is a great way to bring the US to the bargaining table.

 

KSA is so smart....

I think what you guys are saying is Iran is coming to a head and the Saudis are trying to... work themselves into position to if not ally with Israel but at least find a way they can rationalize working with them if martial actions are needed in dealing with Iran?

Did I go too far? I bet KSA knows exactly what Iran is doing. That money talking.

 

"It doesn't matter how you term it” seems to be an acceptable position. I concede the point.

To be clear I said that they DO have interest in common, which they do. Iran is one of those interests.

I have a major issue with the “military-industrial complex” theory of American history that I think would be difficult to discuss here, but I’ll take a moment to notate our difference on this position. I believe that most political leaders, both in the US and in Iran, don’t take foreign policy decisions lightly, and certainly not with an eye on their own checkbooks. I believe that our focus should always be on ideas, not on motives. A cursory look at how Americans have made foreign policy decisions in the past seems to support my notion.

The idea that Israel supported Islamist movements is a little dubious to me. I don’t believe that Israel’s covert services are capable of anything more than intelligence gathering in the Muslim world, with the exception of the occasional assassination. But that idea is certainly valid, of course the Israelis would seek to weaken geopolitical opponents by whatever means necessary.

I’ll read the article, but I view the American failure regarding the Middle East to be first a problem of American overreach (Iraq, and even Afghanistan) under Bush and then a rapid American vacuum, followed by misguided American views on the “Arab Spring.”

I really don’t blame the US for the Syrian Crisis on my current understanding, but I’m open to the possibility.

A lot of Americans, both right and left, would agree with your characterization of American foreign policy, possibly most Americans. I think you’re all wrong. I think that if you ever develop a world view in which the bad guys and good guys are easily identifiable, there’s a 95% chance that you’re wrong. Again I’m not entirely sure how we should proceed on that conversation.

If you don’t mind I have some questions that I ask every Iranian I get a chance to talk to. The first is, I have a picture of Iranian politics that is dominated by 4 groups. Hardliners-Conservatives-Moderates-Reformists. Would you call this a reasonable way of looking at Iranian politics? Is there an ethnic component, do most Persians fall in a particular camp and Arabs in another?

And finally, if my prediction is that the US and Iran are, in the long-term, natural allies, would most Iranians call me a nutjob or does that seem like a realistic possibility?

 

We gonna keep disagreeing on this opinion of yours that the Saudis role in Syria was negligible until we blue in the face. You keep stating it but the research has already proven otherwise

There's so many threads and sources available that proves that KSA pocketbook gives them quite.. the reach. They spent billions supplying Islamists with arms and support for Syria. I'm not talking knock off AKs here but the good ****. Not cheap.

Maybe your right about Iran's regime not being that nutty, they must be rubbing their hands in glee watching Kimmie in NK causing us fits. I don't think Saudi wants them to have one though. Understatement of the year.

 

You can bet that in the face of Iranian aggression both Israel and the Saudis would do anything possible to prevent Iran's power from growing, but I don't think joint strikes against Iran by the two will ever be on the table. It's politically difficult for the Israelis, and political suicide for the Saudis.

Besides, if it ever comes to war I believe that the Saudis would've already lost. They cannot wage a war against Iran, it would be too risky on the domestic front.

EDIT: Also, I really wouldn't say that the KSA are "so smart", they're bumbling in just about every way. That oil under their feet is the only thing keeping the royal family alive.

 

I have some work that I need to take care of, but I like to come back and have this conversation with you. In the meantime, while I see we disagree on some issues, I like the fact that you are open to hearing contrary views.

 

Are you kidding me? No one in the royal family is fighting in Syria.. They would go to prison when they returned.

We haven't been buying Saudi oil for several years... and yes they are dependable allies. .. always have been.

 

What makes you think Saudi Arabia would lose? Why would it be risky on the domestic front?

KSA is diverting more and more oil to downstream manufacturing and that share will grow with the expansions in Yanbu and Jubail. They created 500,000 manufacturing jobs three years ago.