Latest developments and discussion of recent events in the Ukraine War

[webfact]

Saudi foreign minister tells Iran: "enough is enough"

By Stephen Kalin

 

A member of Saudi security forces stands guard before the start of joint a news conference by France's Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian and Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir, at the headquarters of the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, November 16, 2017. REUTERS/Faisal Al Nasser

 

RIYADH (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Adel Jubeir said on Thursday the kingdom's actions in the Middle East were a response to what he called Iranian aggression, and hinted at future action against Lebanon's Hezbollah.

 

Long-standing arch-rivals, Riyadh and Tehran are waging a contest for power on several fronts across the region, notably in Yemen and Lebanon.

 

"(The Iranians) are the ones who are acting in an aggressive manner. We are reacting to that aggression and saying: 'Enough is enough. We’re not going to let you do this anymore'," Jubeir told Reuters in an interview.

 

He said Saudi Arabia was consulting its allies about what leverage to use against Lebanese Shi'ite group Hezbollah -- an Iranian ally -- to end its dominance in the small Mediterranean nation and intervention in other countries.

 

"We will make the decision when the time comes," he said, declining to detail what options were under consideration.

 

Saudi Arabia accused Lebanon last week of declaring war against it because of acts by Hezbollah, which is both a militant and political organisation represented in Lebanon's parliament and government.

 

Jubeir said Hezbollah, which he described as a subsidiary of Iran's Revolutionary Guard "doing Iran's bidding", must disarm for Lebanon to stabilise.

 

"Wherever we see a problem, we see Hezbollah act as an arm or agent of Iran and this has to come to an end," he said.

Jubeir said Iran had harboured terrorists, assassinated diplomats and interfered in other countries' affairs - charges Tehran denies.

 

"If you want us to deal with you as a good neighbour, act like one. But if you continue to act in an aggressive manner, we will push back," he said.

 

LEBANON

 

Since Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman rose to power less than three years ago, Riyadh has struck a more aggressive posture towards Iran, launching a war in Yemen, leading a boycott of neighbouring Qatar in part for allegedly cozying up to Tehran, and ratcheting up its rhetoric against Hezbollah.

 

Saad al-Hariri, a Saudi ally, resigned as Lebanon's prime minister on Nov. 4, citing an assassination plot and accusing Iran and Hezbollah of sowing strife in the region.

 

Lebanese officials say Hariri had come under pressure from Riyadh, which they accuse of holding him captive despite his denials. Hariri said on Thursday he would visit Paris "very soon" and is expected to then return to Lebanon.

 

Jubeir repeated Saudi denials that Riyadh had forced Hariri to resign or held him against his will. "He's a free man, he can do whatever he wants," Jubeir said.

 

Asked if Saudi wanted Hariri to withdraw his resignation, Jubeir said: "That is his decision to make."

 

Saudi's top diplomat said reigning in Hezbollah was the priority and the "facade" that the group needed to hold on to its weapons should be exposed.

 

"If they are to support the resistance, what are they doing in Syria fighting on behalf of the regime alongside the Iranian militias?" he said, referring to President Bashar al-Assad, who is battling rebels backed in part by Saudi Arabia.

 

"If they are there to protect Lebanon, what are they doing in Yemen?"

 

YEMEN

 

Saudi Arabia is backing Yemen's internationally recognised government against the Iran-aligned Houthi movement in a 2-1/2 year-old war. The kingdom has been criticised for killing civilians in airstrikes there and blocking humanitarian aid.

 

Jubeir accused the Houthis, who control much of the country's north, of besieging civilian areas and preventing supplies from coming in or out.

 

A military coalition led by the kingdom has enforced a near-blockade on Yemen, which aid agencies say has contributed to unleashing famine and disease on the already impoverished country.

 

It closed all air, land and sea access on Nov. 6 following the interception of a missile fired towards Riyadh.

 

Saudi Arabia has since said that aid can go through "liberated ports" but not Houthi-controlled Hodeidah, the conduit for the vast bulk of imports into Yemen.

 

Jubeir said the ports of Aden, Mokha and Midi along with Aden airport had resumed operations.

 

The heads of three U.N. agencies on Thursday warned "untold thousands" would die if the blockade stayed in place.

 

Jubeir also said domestic anti-corruption investigations which have netted senior Saudi princes, officials and businessmen in the past two weeks were ongoing. He rejected as "nonsense" criticisms the campaign fell foul of the law.

 

"Those who are guilty are likely to be referred to the courts and they will have fair, transparent trials," he said.

 

(editing by John Stonestreet)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-11-17

[Somtamnication]

This ain't gonna end well.

[phantomfiddler]

Carter should have done a Ronald Reagan and nuked iran when they took the embassy hostages. These people have degenerated to become a bunch of hostage taking thugs !

[Enoon]

2 hours ago, phantomfiddler said:

Carter should have done a Ronald Reagan and nuked iran when they took the embassy hostages. These people have degenerated to become a bunch of hostage taking thugs !

 

Doing a "Ronald Reagan" involved, I believe, covertly selling weapons to Iran (via its Iran hating intermediary Israel) in order to secure the release of American hostages held in Lebanon.

 

I don't think he ever "nuked" anyone, anywhere.

 

But he did build up and enable Muslim extremists in Afghanistan, leading to the establishment of the Taliban regime.

 

The rest, as they say, is History.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2017 by Enoon

[Rancid]

2 hours ago, phantomfiddler said:

Carter should have done a Ronald Reagan and nuked iran when they took the embassy hostages. These people have degenerated to become a bunch of hostage taking thugs !

So exterminating millions of people seems like a good idea to you? Is lusting for genocide really the way forward? Never heard about the CIA ,Shar and the death squads in Iran?

 

Amusing though to see the Saudis talking so tough, go on KSA, go and invade Iran and see what happens. Ah, but when we dig deeper we see that they really want the Israelis to invade Lebanon, rather than themselves of course. And as to Iran, well neither KSA or Israel are willing to take them on (Israel could with nukes of course), rather they are pushing the US to do so.

 

Maybe I'm a bit weird, but if I was an American I wouldn't be excited to see my countrymen coming home in body bags making war, on some country that doesn't threaten me, on behalf of other counties.

[AhFarangJa]

Promising Israel billions of dollars in aid is a bit of a turnaround for a country that wants to see it wiped off the map. Will not be a popular move among the religious nutters over there.

I knew a teacher in Saudi who lost his job because they found an Israeli stamp in his passport.

Edited November 17, 2017 by AhFarangJa

[sanemax]

31 minutes ago, Rancid said:

Maybe I'm a bit weird, but if I was an American I wouldn't be excited to see my countrymen coming home in body bags making war, on some country that doesn't threaten me, on behalf of other counties.

What does this have to do with Americans ?

[Briggsy]

Having failed to come out as top influence in Syria, failed in Yemen, failed in Iraq, failed to subjugate the Qataris, the Saudis will now inflict untold suffering on the people of Lebanon. It is unstoppable.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Rancid said:

So exterminating millions of people seems like a good idea to you? Is lusting for genocide really the way forward? Never heard about the CIA ,Shar and the death squads in Iran?

 

Amusing though to see the Saudis talking so tough, go on KSA, go and invade Iran and see what happens. Ah, but when we dig deeper we see that they really want the Israelis to invade Lebanon, rather than themselves of course. And as to Iran, well neither KSA or Israel are willing to take them on (Israel could with nukes of course), rather they are pushing the US to do so.

 

Maybe I'm a bit weird, but if I was an American I wouldn't be excited to see my countrymen coming home in body bags making war, on some country that doesn't threaten me, on behalf of other counties.

 

Other than in your mind, was there anything said about an invasion of Iran? So far, seems that even opening a new front on this proxy war is a major effort, let alone a head on confrontation or an imaginary invasion.

[Morch]

25 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

Having failed to come out as top influence in Syria, failed in Yemen, failed in Iraq, failed to subjugate the Qataris, the Saudis will now inflict untold suffering on the people of Lebanon. It is unstoppable.

 

How would the Saudis inflict "untold suffering" on the people of Lebanon? What would "untold suffering" be, considering Lebanon's history? And why would it be "unstoppable"?

[Briggsy]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

How would the Saudis inflict "untold suffering" on the people of Lebanon? What would "untold suffering" be, considering Lebanon's history? And why would it be "unstoppable"?

The Saudis will foment war in Lebanon. The die is cast.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

The Saudis will foment war in Lebanon. The die is cast.

 

Very dramatic, if not particularly insightful.

This assured war you talk of - how would it be different than previous wars and conflicts involving Lebanon?

 

[Thaidream]

The Saudi's fear Iran and its brand of Islam because they know that if Iran 'wins' the Mideast the House of Saud is finished.  Trump and his minions are  of course pushing the Saudi action- the US will sell billions of armaments to KSA; Israel and Jordan and act as a proxy. Iran may retaliate and of course they will seek armaments from Russia to counterbalance American support of Saudi and Israel. Iran will never back down- don't forget they fought an 8 year war with Iraq  which caused thousands of deaths on both sides. If Saudi Arabia is not careful- Iran will push back with missile attacks on Riyadh

Instead of America  playing a role as a peacemaker in the area- America is following the lead of Israel who is pushing for confrontation with Iran by any means possible. This is why Trump refused to sign off on the Iran deal. 

It's no wonder that America has the largest Defense budget in the history of the World and is the only industrialized country without universal healthcare. This President and the Republican Congress are willing to sacrifice countless American lives to support Israel's madness and Saudi Arabia's newfound belligerence.

Trump and his Republican Party must be defeated....or  our American brothers and sisters will continue to return home in body bags.

[Krataiboy]

Thank goodness!

 

With ISIS now a busted flush, peace breaking out in Syria, and groper Trump courting Rocket Man I was wondering if the War on Terror was over at last and we could all sleep easy in our beds.

 

Silly me.

 

 

 

[Golgota]

the sweet irony of whahabism State and jewish State banding together "for the better good"

[Morch]

34 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

The Saudi's fear Iran and its brand of Islam because they know that if Iran 'wins' the Mideast the House of Saud is finished.  Trump and his minions are  of course pushing the Saudi action- the US will sell billions of armaments to KSA; Israel and Jordan and act as a proxy. Iran may retaliate and of course they will seek armaments from Russia to counterbalance American support of Saudi and Israel. Iran will never back down- don't forget they fought an 8 year war with Iraq  which caused thousands of deaths on both sides. If Saudi Arabia is not careful- Iran will push back with missile attacks on Riyadh

Instead of America  playing a role as a peacemaker in the area- America is following the lead of Israel who is pushing for confrontation with Iran by any means possible. This is why Trump refused to sign off on the Iran deal. 

It's no wonder that America has the largest Defense budget in the history of the World and is the only industrialized country without universal healthcare. This President and the Republican Congress are willing to sacrifice countless American lives to support Israel's madness and Saudi Arabia's newfound belligerence.

Trump and his Republican Party must be defeated....or  our American brothers and sisters will continue to return home in body bags.

 

What is included under "Iran will never back down"? I don't think there's any serious intentions of invading Iran or subjugating it. Most of the political (as distinctive from religious differences) issues raised relate to Iran's ambitions regarding the scope of its regional influence. What the Saudi Arabia, and other countries in the region fear is not a wholesale takeover by Iran - but the disruption of their countries and rule, by Iranian support for various dissenting elements (usually Shia). There's a good case for such groups being discriminated against, but being the ME, casting stones is tricky.

 

I think it would take a whole lot more than what we're seeing up to now, in order for Saudi Arabia and Iran to actually come to blows. For Saudi Arabia's part - all that hardware bought form the USA is no substitute for numbers, battle experience and fighting spirit. Going directly against Iran, without massive backup is bound to end in tears. For Iran, there's no particular incentive to change its ongoing successful strategy, which relies on avoiding a confrontation, plus direct attacks on Saudi Arabia are still likely to be taken negatively by Muslims countries.

 

The USA is unable to play a mediating role between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Its stance vs. Iran hasn't been neutral for decades, so the best one may expect are efforts to prevent an escalation by leveraging Saudi Arabia. Whether or not the USA still possess enough clout to do so, is a good question. That USA regional foreign policy (which wasn't clear or much of a success) is even more messed up under Trump's administration, makes it less likely that the USA will play a constructive, positive role on this front.

 

The peacemaker role the USA may (or may not) play is more related to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. To a certain degree, this involves Saudi Arabia's participation and goodwill. I would be surprised if some of the discussions held do not tie future peace prospects with one or the other sort of mutual support.

 

I don't know that Israel, as a whole, is "pushing for a confrontation with Iran be any means possible". It may describe Israel's Prime Minister's (and some of his right wing cronies) point of view, but not something unanimously supported by Israel's military and security chiefs. That many recognize such a confrontation might emerge is not quite the same as seeking it.

Edited November 17, 2017 by Morch

[Morch]

14 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Thank goodness!

 

With ISIS now a busted flush, peace breaking out in Syria, and groper Trump courting Rocket Man I was wondering if the War on Terror was over at last and we could all sleep easy in our beds.

 

Silly me.

 

 

 

 

Peace isn't breaking out in Syria, though.

[craigt3365]

28 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Thank goodness!

 

With ISIS now a busted flush, peace breaking out in Syria, and groper Trump courting Rocket Man I was wondering if the War on Terror was over at last and we could all sleep easy in our beds.

 

Silly me.

Peace in Syria?  Not for a long time.  So yes, silly you. LOL

[khunken]

37 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What is included under "Iran will never back down"? I don't think there's any serious intentions of invading Iran or subjugating it. Most of the political (as distinctive from religious differences) issues raised relate to Iran's ambitions regarding the scope of its regional influence. What the Saudi Arabia, and other countries in the region fear is not a wholesale takeover by Iran - but the disruption of their countries and rule, by Iranian support for various dissenting elements (usually Shia). There's a good case for such groups being discriminated against, but being the ME, casting stones is tricky.

 

I think it would take a whole lot more than what we're seeing up to now, in order for Saudi Arabia and Iran to actually come to blows. For Saudi Arabia's part - all that hardware bought form the USA is no substitute for numbers, battle experience and fighting spirit. Going directly against Iran, without massive backup is bound to end in tears. For Iran, there's no particular incentive to change its ongoing successful strategy, which relies on avoiding a confrontation, plus direct attacks on Saudi Arabia are still likely to be taken negatively by Muslims countries.

 

The USA is unable to play a mediating role between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Its stance vs. Iran hasn't been neutral for decades, so the best one may expect are efforts to prevent an escalation by leveraging Saudi Arabia. Whether or not the USA still possess enough clout to do so, is a good question. That USA regional foreign policy (which wasn't clear or much of a success) is even more messed up under Trump's administration, makes it less likely that the USA will play a constructive, positive role on this front.

 

The peacemaker role the USA may (or may not) play is more related to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. To a certain degree, this involves Saudi Arabia's participation and goodwill. I would be surprised if some of the discussions held do not tie future peace prospects with one or the other sort of mutual support.

 

I don't know that Israel, as a whole, is "pushing for a confrontation with Iran be any means possible". It may describe Israel's Prime Minister's (and some of his right wing cronies) point of view, but not something unanimously supported by Israel's military and security chiefs. That many recognize such a confrontation might emerge is not quite the same as seeking it.

This is the first time I've liked a post by you Morch.

 

It is far more balanced that most of your posts about the region. One point of disagreement:

 

No,  only from the Saudi-Israel-USA viewpoint are the 'dissenting elements' (aka Hezbollah) a problem when the dissenting elements in Syria (aka Al-Nusra, Al-Shams etc) are not. The hypocrisy comes because the former are winners, so far, but the latter are losers.

 

What a pity though that the Saudi efforts against the 'apostate' Shias has been far greater that their non-efforts against Al-Qaeda & IS outside Saudi.

[craigt3365]

11 minutes ago, khunken said:

This is the first time I've liked a post by you Morch.

 

It is far more balanced that most of your posts about the region. One point of disagreement:

 

No,  only from the Saudi-Israel-USA viewpoint are the 'dissenting elements' (aka Hezbollah) a problem when the dissenting elements in Syria (aka Al-Nusra, Al-Shams etc) are not. The hypocrisy comes because the former are winners, so far, but the latter are losers.

 

What a pity though that the Saudi efforts against the 'apostate' Shias has been far greater that their non-efforts against Al-Qaeda & IS outside Saudi.

That's not true.  The US only supported rebel factions to help contain the war.  And reluctantly at that.  Hard to turn a blind eye to the civilian massacre going on by the Syrian and Russian forces.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, khunken said:

This is the first time I've liked a post by you Morch.

 

It is far more balanced that most of your posts about the region. One point of disagreement:

 

No,  only from the Saudi-Israel-USA viewpoint are the 'dissenting elements' (aka Hezbollah) a problem when the dissenting elements in Syria (aka Al-Nusra, Al-Shams etc) are not. The hypocrisy comes because the former are winners, so far, but the latter are losers.

 

What a pity though that the Saudi efforts against the 'apostate' Shias has been far greater that their non-efforts against Al-Qaeda & IS outside Saudi.

 

Attitudes regarding Hezbollah are divided even within Lebanon. Same goes with regard to Syria, where not all those Hezbollah faced were Islamic extremists, or Assad fanboys. In the Gulf, Hezbollah and other Shia outfits are definitely seen as a problem. I would guess than not everyone in Yemen is pro-Hezbollah as well. There were even reports which suggest Iranian's aren't all that thrilled with their country's foreign investment in such parties and causes.

 

There was no comparison made to Sunni extremists groups as mentioned, and there weren't any claims made as to how these are perceived. It's usually not quite an either/or proposition. Not sure what was the point you were trying to make. That political positions are rife with hypocrisy, or that almost all parties involved support dodgy elements when it suits interests, goes without saying.

[khunken]

Just now, craigt3365 said:

That's not true.  The US only supported rebel factions to help contain the war.  And reluctantly at that.  Hard to turn a blind eye to the civilian massacre going on by the Syrian and Russian forces.

What's 'not true'? I mentioned Saudi-supported militias which, at times, the US did support however 'reluctantly'.

 

Also hard to turn a blind eye to the massacre of Yemenis By Saudi Arabia with the tacit (& more) support of the US

[craigt3365]

6 minutes ago, khunken said:

What's 'not true'? I mentioned Saudi-supported militias which, at times, the US did support however 'reluctantly'.

 

Also hard to turn a blind eye to the massacre of Yemenis By Saudi Arabia with the tacit (& more) support of the US

I'm not even sure if in the beginning, some of these rebel groups were even supported by SA? Things changed so quickly and so often!  Impossible to keep up.

 

I don't see the US turning a blind eye to Yemen.  They were critical of it...until Trump came along....

[metisdead]

A post containing a link to the Daily Mail has been removed as the Daily Mail is blocked in Thailand:

 

[khunken]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Attitudes regarding Hezbollah are divided even within Lebanon. Same goes with regard to Syria, where not all those Hezbollah faced were Islamic extremists, or Assad fanboys. In the Gulf, Hezbollah and other Shia outfits are definitely seen as a problem. I would guess than not everyone in Yemen is pro-Hezbollah as well. There were even reports which suggest Iranian's aren't all that thrilled with their country's foreign investment in such parties and causes.

 

There was no comparison made to Sunni extremists groups as mentioned, and there weren't any claims made as to how these are perceived. It's usually not quite an either/or proposition. Not sure what was the point you were trying to make. That political positions are rife with hypocrisy, or that almost all parties involved support dodgy elements when it suits interests, goes without saying.

Oh I do know that not every political entity or civilian in Lebanon supports Hezbollah. But given the current make-up of Lebanon's government, they probably have majority support and are seen by many as the main counter to any Israeli interference.

 

Of course not all in Yemen are pro-Hezbollah & neither are they all pro-Saudi. Broadly it's the Houthis on one side & the Sunnis on the other. The mention of Hezbollah by the Saudis looks like a lie to me, Iran quite likely but Hezbollah very unlikely.

 

No the Saudis didn't make any claims about the militias they support for obvious reasons. That doesn't mean that they don't exist & be pointed out.

[khunken]

7 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I'm not even sure if in the beginning, some of these rebel groups were even supported by SA? Things changed so quickly and so often!  Impossible to keep up.

 

I don't see the US turning a blind eye to Yemen.  They were critical of it...until Trump came along....

Yes - impossible for you to keep up which is why you post ridiculous items like Hezbollah should leave Lebanon in anothe thread.

 

The US were NEVER critical of Saudi intervention in Yemen. Even before Trump the US bombed the Houthis on occasion from warships in the gulf. Silence about hospitals & schools being bombed by the Saudis (both before & after Trump) is not criticism.

[sanemax]

1 minute ago, khunken said:

The US were NEVER critical of Saudi intervention in Yemen. Even before Trump the US bombed the Houthis on occasion from warships in the gulf. Silence about hospitals & schools being bombed by the Saudis (both before & after Trump) is not criticism.

No need to mention the U.S or Trump .

Why do Americans always seem to need to get their Country involved in every situation ?

[punchjudy]

43 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

That's not true.  The US only supported rebel factions to help contain the war.  And reluctantly at that.  Hard to turn a blind eye to the civilian massacre going on by the Syrian and Russian forces.

The US supported dangerous islamists to further it's own interests/influence in the region

Edited November 17, 2017 by punchjudy
.

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, khunken said:

Oh I do know that not every political entity or civilian in Lebanon supports Hezbollah. But given the current make-up of Lebanon's government, they probably have majority support and are seen by many as the main counter to any Israeli interference.

 

Of course not all in Yemen are pro-Hezbollah & neither are they all pro-Saudi. Broadly it's the Houthis on one side & the Sunnis on the other. The mention of Hezbollah by the Saudis looks like a lie to me, Iran quite likely but Hezbollah very unlikely.

 

No the Saudis didn't make any claims about the militias they support for obvious reasons. That doesn't mean that they don't exist & be pointed out.

 

Your take on things seems to disregard that people's support is conditional. Hezbollah does not get anything that resembles "majority support" with regard to all current events and issues. Even it's supposed self proclaimed role vs. Israel is debated, considering the cost paid by the country as a whole, without it having a say in it. In the same vein, Hezbollah's involvement in the Syrian civil war was not as widely supported by the Lebanese as you seem to suggest. Hezbollah's acting on behalf of Syrian and Iranian interests is not something "the majority" of Lebanese are all that happy about.

 

Those in Yemen not opposed to Saudi Arabia, are probably not Hezbollah fans. Among those that are, guess you'll find more than one opinion, things are usually like that, rather than the placard versions often offered. Not exactly sure what you meant by a lie - Saudi claims of Hezbollah presence and involvement? Seriously doubt it's not true, if perhaps not to the extent suggested by Saudi Arabia. A while back, there was some public discontent in Iran over the cost and casualties (Iranian, that is) related to the Syrian civil war. The way to address this sentiment was by using various Shia militias, mostly foreign (whereas in Iraq, due to numbers, these were mostly locals). So Iran using the same paradigm in Yemen is quite likely. Direct involvement runs the risk of generating an unavoidable crisis with Saudi Arabia.

 

Still not sure what your last bit was about or how it relates to my post. That both Iran and Saudi Arabia engage each other by dodgy proxies, and both denying such actions or their extent is a given.

[craftyhen]

still getting over the fact that these 2 countries are in the world cup