Saudi Arabia and Arab allies accuse Iran and Hezbollah of interference

[webfact]

Saudi Arabia and Arab allies accuse Iran and Hezbollah of interference

By Patrick Markey and Mohamed Abdellah

 

Arab foreign ministers meet at the request of Saudi Arabia, in Cairo, Egypt, November 19, 2017. REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh

 

CAIRO (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia and other Arab foreign ministers criticised Iran and its Lebanese Shi'ite ally Hezbollah at an emergency meeting in Cairo on Sunday, warning they would not stand by in the face of Iranian interference in Arab affairs.

 

Regional tensions have risen in recent weeks between Sunni monarchy Saudi Arabia and Shi'ite Islamist Iran over Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri's surprise resignation, and an escalation in Yemen's conflict.

 

Hariri, a Saudi ally, resigned on Nov. 4 from Riyadh, accusing Iran and Hezbollah of spreading strife. But Lebanese President Michel Aoun and other politicians accused Saudi Arabia of holding Hariri hostage and said he had been coerced into resigning. Saudi Arabia and Hariri both deny that.

 

Hezbollah, both a military force involved in Syria's war and a political movement, is part of a Lebanese government made up of rival factions, and an ally of Aoun.

 

Saudi Arabia also accuses Hezbollah of a role in the launch of a missile towards Riyadh from Yemen this month. Iran denies accusations that it supplies Houthi forces there.

 

"The kingdom will not stand by and will not hesitate to defend its security," Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Adel Jubeir told the assembly.

 

"Any leniency in dealing with their policies would only encourage them more, so we must stand together," Jubeir said, referring to Iran and its regional policies.

 

The emergency Arab foreign ministers' meeting was convened at the request of Saudi Arabia with support from the UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait to discuss means of confronting Iranian intervention, Egypt's state news agency MENA said.

 

Arab League Secretary General Ahmed Aboul Gheit told ministers that Arab nations would raise the matter with international organisations, including the U.N. Security Council. But the assembly gave no details on what measures they would take.

 

"Iranian threats have gone beyond all limits and pushed the region into a dangerous abyss," Gheit said.

 

Yemen's civil war pits the internationally recognised government, backed by Saudi Arabia and its allies, against the Houthis and forces loyal to former president Ali Abdullah Saleh.

 

"Unfortunately countries like the Saudi regime are pursuing divisions and creating differences, and because of this they don’t see any results other than divisions," Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told Iranian state media on Sunday on the sidelines of a meeting in Antalya, Turkey, with his Russian and Turkish counterparts about the Syria conflict.

 

After French intervention, Hariri flew to France and met French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris on Saturday. He will arrive in Cairo for a visit on Monday, a leader in his Future Movement told Reuters on Sunday.

 

Speaking in Paris, Hariri said he would clarify his position when he returns to Beirut in the coming days. He said he would take part in Lebanese independence day celebrations, which are scheduled for Wednesday.

 

(Additional reporting by Arwa Gaballa and Mostafa Hashem in Cairo; Sarah Dadouch and Babak Dehghanpisheh in Beirut; Editing by Mark Potter and Adrian Croft)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-11-20

[stevenl]

Yes, of course Iran is interfering, as are SA, and its allies.

[craigt3365]

49 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Yes, of course Iran is interfering, as are SA, and its allies.

But SA doesn't have a huge proxy army it's funding like Iran does.

[stevenl]

22 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

But SA doesn't have a huge proxy army it's funding like Iran does.

Agreed, Iran is better at it than SA.

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Agreed, Iran is better at it than SA.

My point exactly.  They are better at projecting terrorism to other nations.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/19/middleeast/saudi-arabia-iran-arab-league/index.html

Quote

Arab League states condemn Hezbollah as 'terrorist organization'

Funny that some members here try to present Hezbollah as a benevolent organization! LOL

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

My point exactly.  They are better at projecting terrorism to other nations.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/19/middleeast/saudi-arabia-iran-arab-league/index.html

Funny that some members here try to present Hezbollah as a benevolent organization! LOL

Extending influence and terrorism are not the same. Maybe in your mind though, although that doesn't bode well for your opinion on your beloved and not to be criticized USA.

 

Don't forget SA has financially supported IS for a long time.

[craigt3365]

10 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Extending influence and terrorism are not the same. Maybe in your mind though, although that doesn't bode well for your opinion on your beloved and not to be criticized USA.

 

Don't forget SA has financially supported IS for a long time.

Understand that perfectly.  Be nice.  I've got no problem with being critical of the US as long as it's true and not just trolling.  As so many here do.

 

I'm well aware of what SA has been doing.  Just don't agree they are worse than Iran.  Both are bad to the core.

[retarius]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

But SA doesn't have a huge proxy army it's funding like Iran does.

Actually ISIS is SA's proxy army. We saw it in action in Syria and Iraq...

[retarius]

The irony of this is incredible. I cannot remember a time in my life when foreign policies had so much cognitive dissonance and were so conflicted and so hypocritical....self determination is right in some cases (like Kosovo, but not in others like Crimea, Catalans or for Iraqi Kurds) but not in others; one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter (Hezbollah has brought untold benefits to Lebanon and contrary to what you might read is not composed of Iranians, but Lebanese); the most warlike countries in the world (US, Israel and Saudi) profess to be interested in peace; sovereignty is absolutely critical for some nations but not for others like Iraq and Syria, Libya and Afghanistan; popular uprisings are ok in some countries (Syria) but not in others (Yemen); besieging is a great tactic when starving babies in Yemen, but not in Aleppo); interfering in the politics of another nation is perfectly proper if you invade and replace one leader with another, or if you have the CIA arm, train and organize the local population, but not if you buy $100K of ads on facebook. Excuse me while I vomit from the rank smell of hypocrisy.

(((((((((((PUKE)))))))))))))

The lies are palpable and out in the open but the populations have been so dumbed down that they cannot think critically anymore and via TV have come to accept that war and violence are the answer to every question....when you have lost all the  moral high ground every problem looks like the nail and hammer, ie   US, Israel and SA have no moral authority and their only tool is a relatively (vs the rest of the region or world) huge military, then it seems that every problem can be solved by slaughtering the local populations. 

[Rancid]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

I'm well aware of what SA has been doing.  Just don't agree they are worse than Iran.  Both are bad to the core.

All the more reason for the West (and Russia) to get out of the area completely and let the Sunnis, Shiites and Israelis slug it out. Just might find they will all be forced to come to some kind of agreement when they've shed enough of their own blood.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Understand that perfectly.  Be nice.  I've got no problem with being critical of the US as long as it's true and not just trolling.  As so many here do.

 

I'm well aware of what SA has been doing.  Just don't agree they are worse than Iran.  Both are bad to the core.

Which is what I was saying (don't necessarily agree with you calling it bad though). The problem SA is having is that Iran is better at what they're doing than SA.

[craigt3365]

44 minutes ago, Rancid said:

All the more reason for the West (and Russia) to get out of the area completely and let the Sunnis, Shiites and Israelis slug it out. Just might find they will all be forced to come to some kind of agreement when they've shed enough of their own blood.

100% agree.  Western powers have been causing problems in the ME for a very long time.  Starting with the British and the Russians. 

 

But also, countries in the ME should stop their proxy wars.  That means Iran and SA need to leave other nations alone.  They are the #1 problem in the ME today.  One religion hating another.  Sad times....

[Morch]

6 hours ago, stevenl said:

Yes, of course Iran is interfering, as are SA, and its allies.

 

Guess we'll hear Iran's version when they convene their own summit, or something.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, stevenl said:

Extending influence and terrorism are not the same. Maybe in your mind though, although that doesn't bode well for your opinion on your beloved and not to be criticized USA.

 

Don't forget SA has financially supported IS for a long time.

 

3 hours ago, retarius said:

Actually ISIS is SA's proxy army. We saw it in action in Syria and Iraq...

 

Doubt that there's much evidence Saudi Arabia, as a country, aided ISIS much or that ISIS was it's "proxy army" in the way Hezbollah is affiliated with Iran. There was support provided by the Saudis to organizations opposing Assad, but lumping of conflating these with ISIS, is incorrect, as far as I'm aware.

 

One aspect of the war in Syria was groups and factions switching sides and allegiances. Most posters seem to have a hard time keeping that in mind, even without getting into the pesky details of who's was with whom at any given time.

 

[mikebike]

  Doubt that there's much evidence Saudi Arabia, as a country, aided ISIS much or that ISIS was it's "proxy army" in the way Hezbollah is affiliated with Iran. There was support provided by the Saudis to organizations opposing Assad, but lumping of conflating these with ISIS, is incorrect, as far as I'm aware.

 

One aspect of the war in Syria was groups and factions switching sides and allegiances. Most posters seem to have a hard time keeping that in mind, even without getting into the pesky details of who's was with whom at any given time.

 

 

Uh, no. Shia's do not become Sunni's at a whim. Nor visa versa.

 

ME is NOT a state conflict. It is a religious conflict enacted by states.

 

 

 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, retarius said:

The irony of this is incredible. I cannot remember a time in my life when foreign policies had so much cognitive dissonance and were so conflicted and so hypocritical....self determination is right in some cases (like Kosovo, but not in others like Crimea, Catalans or for Iraqi Kurds) but not in others; one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter (Hezbollah has brought untold benefits to Lebanon and contrary to what you might read is not composed of Iranians, but Lebanese); the most warlike countries in the world (US, Israel and Saudi) profess to be interested in peace; sovereignty is absolutely critical for some nations but not for others like Iraq and Syria, Libya and Afghanistan; popular uprisings are ok in some countries (Syria) but not in others (Yemen); besieging is a great tactic when starving babies in Yemen, but not in Aleppo); interfering in the politics of another nation is perfectly proper if you invade and replace one leader with another, or if you have the CIA arm, train and organize the local population, but not if you buy $100K of ads on facebook. Excuse me while I vomit from the rank smell of hypocrisy.

(((((((((((PUKE)))))))))))))

The lies are palpable and out in the open but the populations have been so dumbed down that they cannot think critically anymore and via TV have come to accept that war and violence are the answer to every question....when you have lost all the  moral high ground every problem looks like the nail and hammer, ie   US, Israel and SA have no moral authority and their only tool is a relatively (vs the rest of the region or world) huge military, then it seems that every problem can be solved by slaughtering the local populations. 

 

Another tirade....Oh well.

 

I don't know that anyone claimed Hezbollah is composed of Iranians, at least not on these topics. As for the alleged "untold benefits" - if you include involvement in sectarian violence, an assassination of a prime minister, and getting the country to suffer the consequences of their actions - sure. That Hezbollah does play a social role, and that quite a bit of it is positive, doesn't erase the negatives, nor is the contribution "untold".

 

The USA, perhaps - but Israel and Saudi Arabia are hardly, the "most warlike" in the world. Not that any sort of factual accuracy was expected, given it's a rant.

 

When it comes to international relations, hypocrisy is often present. Somehow, it seems that the instances which bother your delicate digestion, are those involving countries which you habitually rile against - while not minding such actions and behaviors when taken up by those you support. The above tirade would be a tad more convincing if it wasn't the usual partisan fare. Kinda exemplifies the same hypocrisy you claim to have a gripe with.

 

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Uh, no. Shia's do not become Sunni's at a whim. Nor visa versa.

 

ME is NOT a state conflict. It is a religious conflict enacted by states.

 

 

 

 

I think you have misunderstood my post.

 

The reference was to groups opposing Assad's regime often switching their allegiance with regard to the bigger fish. This relates to the often raised claims of X, Y or Z supporting ISIS. Support was sometimes given to groups which later on swore allegiance to ISIS etc.

 

And while the latter sentiment is partially correct, it leaves out rivalries and conflicts which are either national, ethnic or even personal, within each religious "camp", or how they interact with religious motivations. Formulating things in the ME (or elsewhere, for that matter) as being down to a singular factor is often incorrect.

[mikebike]

No I didn't misunderstand.

 

Support was given to groups based on state allegiance ignoring religious allegiance.

 

Most certainly the inability or unwillingness of foreign actors in the ME to comprehensively assess the situation has been a major reason why they have been ineffectual.

 

 

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, mikebike said:

No I didn't misunderstand.

Support was given to groups based on state allegiance ignoring religious allegiance.

Most certainly the inability or unwillingness of foreign actors in the ME comprehensively assess the situation has been a major reason why they have been ineffectual.

 

If you understood my post, then you probably realize that it doesn't relate to your comment.

 

As for your second line, too generalized and too unclear to comment on.

 

Foreign actors were "ineffectual"? The way I recall things, the Russian intervention was very effective, if not for everyone and not suiting all parties interests. The USA's Kurdish based campaign wasn't too shabby as well, up to a point. If the comment was, again, a generalized one with regard to the history of foreign involvement in the ME - that's a way wider field than the current topic addresses.

 

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by Morch

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Another tirade....Oh well.

 

He's good at that. LOL

[DaddyWarbucks]

Probably the Saudis and the Americans exaggerate the willingness of Netanyahu and Israel to go to war.  Netanyahu has always been strong on bellicose rhetoric, but cautious about real military conflict - except in Gaza, which was more massacre than war.

Israel's military strength tends to be exaggerated and its army has not won a war outright since 1973. Previous engagements with Hezbollah have gone badly.

But even if the Israelis do not intend to fight Hezbollah or Iran, this does not mean that they would not like somebody else to do so for them.

The wars in Iraq and Syria already have their winners and losers: President Assad stays in Damascus, as does a Shia-dominated government in Baghdad. An Iranian-backed substantially Shia axis in four countries - Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.  This is the outcome of the wars since 2011.

Nobody has much to gain from another war in the Middle East, with the sole exception of Israel.  But wars are usually started by those who miscalculate their own strengths and interests. Both the US and Saudi Arabia have become "wild cards" in the regional pack. 

The sort of Neocon and right-wing think tankers who in 2003 were saying that a war with Iraq would be a "cakewalk", are back in business in Washington, pushing for war with Iran - and are stronger than ever.

 

[metisdead]

A post containing insulting comments directed at another member has been removed. 

[Morch]

@DaddyWarbucks

 

Same old spin.

 

Israel is indeed unlikely to go to war on behalf of Saudi Arabia's interests. In fact, that's pretty much what most commentaries and analysts say. Can't rightly recall either Saudi Arabia or the USA "exaggerating" said "willingness" - seems like a bit of creative imagination there, in the service of the usual worn argument.

 

Neither Israel, nor Iran or Saudi Arabia is interested in a head on clash. Presenting it as something specific to either is incorrect and misleading. Serves everyone's purposes better to avoid such a full scale war at this time.

 

As for the "nobody has much to gain from another war in the Middle East, with the sole exception of Israel" - notably, there is no explanation provided as to how or what Israel may gain, all that's offered is a partisan truism. That aside - Saudi Arabia would be an obvious contender, and Jordan wouldn't mind removing Iran and Iranian influences from its own borders, Turkey could use a diversion to cement its position in Northern Syria....just a few option, without even digging too deep.

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by Morch

[Scott]

Troll post removed.

[ilostmypassword]

Hariri Wants Lebanon Kept Out of the Saudi-Iranian Conflict

BEIRUT—Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri called for Lebanon to be left out of the regional clash between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and praised the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia for doing its part to de-escalate the tensions.

In his first interview with a U.S. news organization since withdrawing the resignation he made under Saudi pressure in November, Mr. Hariri also told The Wall Street Journal that he was open to Hezbollah continuing to participate in the government following elections slated for May.

By taking a conciliatory approach to Hezbollah, which the U.S. and Saudi Arabia designate as a terrorist organization, Mr. Hariri—the leader of Lebanon’s main Sunni Muslim bloc—seemed to be defying pressure from Riyadh to confront the Shiite militia.

http://www.cetusnews.com/news/Hariri-Wants-Lebanon-Kept-Out-of-the-Saudi-Iranian-Conflict.HklzfPVBVf.html

 

What does the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia have to do to make Hariri show some respect? Kidnap him? Oh wait...he tried that already.