Putin Urged to Deploy Nuclear Weapons to Expedite War and Sever NATO Supply Routes

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Given that he is, in effect, the ruler of Saudi Arabia, and has already made many serious mistakes in his conduct of foreign policy, I don't think a closer look at his modus operandi is at all besides the point. 

And as for the Iran question, oddly enough, Thomas Friedman gets it about right:

Obsession With Iran Is Driving the Mideast and the U.S. Crazy

"And the Iranians want to get wide — to expand their influence from Tehran to the Mediterranean — not by creating a successful and attractive development model at home that Arabs and other Muslims would want to emulate, but rather by forcing their way into Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Iraq through local Shiite militias that have created states within these states.

This is generating a lot of anxiety in the Arab world, the U.S. and Israel without enough people stepping back and thinking: So pro-Iranian militias control a bunch of bad neighborhoods in Beirut, Sana, Damascus and Baghdad... What are they really “winning”?"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/opinion/american-obsession-iran-middle-east.html

 

To be fair, I can understand why Israel so strongly favors the anti-Iranian obsession of their de facto ally - this is where at least 2  otherwise dubious Haaretz columnists approve of  Saudi policy - but somehow I don't think that they necessarily have the Saudis' best interests at heart. Better the Saudis get a bloody nose and or a black eye rather than the Israelis.

 

Guess we have a different take on what passes for a "closer look" and as to when it becomes repetitive, if not obsessive. Given the tendency to focus on the less relevant stories, and contrary to a view presented on a parallel topic engage in creative memes and nicknames, doesn't seem all that enlightening or even informative.

 

I think Friedman does raise good points, and notably he does so without much engagement in the sort of criticism you favor. Where the analysis lacks, IMO, is with regard to underestimating Iran's gains, and assuming not engaging Iran would imply some sort of truce in the regional struggle. If left unchecked, Iran will push on. If it's left to its own designs and given reprieve, it will cement gains made and move on to the next front. This isn't going away this easily.

 

Granted, Saudi Arabia is not equipped to counter this on its own, and obviously is years (if not decades) behind with regard to securing regional partners's support and gearing up (both economically and militarily) for the sort of challenges ahead. Doubtful that Iran doesn't know the score, and doubtful that it wouldn't attempt to capitalize on this favorable balance while it can.

 

This goes back to things posted earlier - the Crown Prince inherited a given state of things, under which Saudi Arabia status keeps eroding, perhaps to a degree of becoming a risk to the House of Saud, not too far in the future. Hasty, less than optimal decision making can be attributed both to inexperience and flaws of character. But the way I see it, there are sizeable measures of urgency, anger and even desperation involved. Perhaps there are no perfect courses of action, and quite probably not all the information is readily available when passing judgement.

 

I think that Israel's interest when it comes to Saudi Arabia does not revolve solely around Iran. Saudi Arabia is pretty much the gate keeper holding the keys to Israel's acceptance (even if a reluctant one) in the region. That's without getting into the obvious advantage presented by issues pertaining to economic ties.

[bendejo]

On 11/23/2017 at 11:37 PM, webfact said:

Saudi Crown Prince calls Iran leader 'new Hitler'

 

So, is this a tacit acknowledgment that he deems that The Holocaust was real?

That would be impressive....

 

 

[Naam]

4 hours ago, bendejo said:

So, is this a tacit acknowledgment that he deems that The Holocaust was real?

That would be impressive....

 

why impressive? there was never any denial as far as Saudi Arabia is concerned.

[Naam]

On 12/8/2017 at 6:21 PM, ilostmypassword said:

“The image of the crown prince spending that much money to buy a painting when he’s supposed to be leading an anticorruption drive is staggering,” said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and leading expert on Saudi politics.

BS from an ignorant self-appointed eggsburt on Saudi politics. what's the connection of buying a painting as a gift for a friendly country's museum and corruption?

[ilostmypassword]

7 minutes ago, Naam said:

BS from an ignorant self-appointed eggsburt on Saudi politics. what's the connection of buying a painting as a gift for a friendly country's museum and corruption?

Where does the Crown Prince;s money come from? Is there a transparent open budget that allows citizens to see revenues and expenditures?

And apart from questions of corruption and transparency, is it really a wise thing to do when he's calling for austerity? And if it's not a problem, then why are the Saudis denying it?

Yes, Bruce Riedel is "an ignorant self-appointed eggsburt on Saudi politics"

https://www.brookings.edu/book/kings-and-presidents/

 

 

[Naam]

12 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Where does the Crown Prince;s money come from? Is there a transparent open budget that allows citizens to see revenues and expenditures?

And apart from questions of corruption and transparency, is it really a wise thing to do when he's calling for austerity? And if it's not a problem, then why are the Saudis denying it?

all your questions are none of your, mine or Riedel's business. neither of us is a Saudi citizen.

[ilostmypassword]

12 hours ago, Naam said:

all your questions are none of your, mine or Riedel's business. neither of us is a Saudi citizen.

Very sensible comment. That's why thaivisa.com created a forum for world news. So that no one would comment in a critical way on the affairs of foreign nations,

 

And clearly, we should leave criticism  up to Saudi citizens because if one thing is true, it's that Saudi citizens are free to criticize their government.

Saudi Arabia: New Counterterrorism Law Enables Abuse

Criminalizes Criticisms of King and Crown Prince as Terrorism Offense

 "Saudi Arabia’s new counterterrorism law includes vague and overly broad definitions of acts of terrorism, in some cases punishable by death, Human Rights Watch said today...

It includes criminal penalties of 5 to 10 years in prison for portraying the king or crown prince, directly or indirectly, “in a manner that brings religion or justice into disrepute,” and criminalizes a wide range of peaceful acts that bear no relation to terrorism."

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/11/23/saudi-arabia-new-counterterrorism-law-enables-abuse

 

[Morch]

11 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Very sensible comment. That's why thaivisa.com created a forum for world news. So that no one would comment in a critical way on the affairs of foreign nations,

 

And clearly, we should leave criticism  up to Saudi citizens because if one thing is true, it's that Saudi citizens are free to criticize their government.

Saudi Arabia: New Counterterrorism Law Enables Abuse

Criminalizes Criticisms of King and Crown Prince as Terrorism Offense

 "Saudi Arabia’s new counterterrorism law includes vague and overly broad definitions of acts of terrorism, in some cases punishable by death, Human Rights Watch said today...

It includes criminal penalties of 5 to 10 years in prison for portraying the king or crown prince, directly or indirectly, “in a manner that brings religion or justice into disrepute,” and criminalizes a wide range of peaceful acts that bear no relation to terrorism."

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/11/23/saudi-arabia-new-counterterrorism-law-enables-abuse

 

 

Hard to tell if you've got an axe to grind or just arguing for argument's sake. Nobody claimed that norms prevalent in Saudi Arabia are on par with those accepted in Western democracies. Nobody expects this to change overnight. And judging each instance without any reference to the context is either disingenuous or off mark.

 

As pointed out earlier, this topic is actually about the struggle for regional dominance between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Many of your post focus on the Crown Prince's supposed character flaws, rather than on the issue at hand, based on the pretext that it is relevant due to his position. This is "achieved" by applying external norms, and setting unrealistic (and perhaps irrelevant) standards.

 

There is little offered by way of seeing Saudi actions and decisions in light of regional threats and existing constraints, there is little offered with regard to the Iranian side of this equation, certainly nothing approaching the minute "analysis" engaged in.

[metisdead]

Some petty bickering posts and replies have been removed. 

[ilostmypassword]

It turns out that the guy who called the Iranian leader "Hitler of the East" may have been planning his own unwarranted aggression. 

Trump Warned Saudis Off Military Move on Qatar

"Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates considered military action in the early stages of their ongoing dispute with Qatar before Donald Trump called leaders of both countries and warned them to back off, according to two people familiar with the U.S. president’s discussions.

The Saudis and Emiratis were looking at ways to remove the Qatari regime, which they accused of sponsoring terrorism and cozying up to Iran, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because the discussions were confidential. Trump told Saudi and U.A.E. leaders that any military action would trigger a crisis across the Middle East that would only benefit Iran, one of the people said."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-19/trump-is-said-to-have-warned-saudis-off-military-move-on-qatar

Given that nature of the Saudi leadership, this is not surprising. What is surprising and makes me more doubtful than I otherwise would be is the fact that Trump is alleged to have discouraged the move. Given that he's a huge fanboy of the Crown Prince, his alleged advice aligned with common sense does seem out of character.

[Morch]

 

@ilostmypassword

 

How does "unwarranted aggression" equates with the the (admittedly, hyperbolic) remark of the Crown Prince regarding Iran? If "unwarranted aggression" was a benchmark for applying a Hitler status, there would have been a whole lot of short guys with funny mustaches running countries.

 

One of Iran's default arguments justifying involvement (military and otherwise) in domestic affairs of other countries in the region is that it does so (or even obligated to do so) in order to protect fellow Shia Muslims. Considering there are Shia Muslims in most, if not all, countries in the region, that's sort of a blanket justification for getting stuck in wherever it sees fit. Not exactly the same as the historical example, but not too far off.

 

Further, Iran's style of involvement is not limited or characterized by merely applying influence using diplomatic or economic means. There's are organized proxies set up, and these are encouraged to act as substitutes (where and when possible) for state functions. The loyalties of these proxy agents may be questioned. While these practices do not amount to conquest or occupation, they do pose a new reality in which Iran does have a presence across the region. Again, not the same, but...

 

There is no question, I believe, of Iran ceasing  and desisting such activities, regardless of whatever overtures or conciliatory gestures are offered.

 

Saudi Arabia's former policies (leveraging economic and diplomatic clout ) seem to be evolving to include both forays into both direct aggression and a shot at creating credible proxy agents. So far, their inexperience with either new approach resulted in what are generally accepted to be failures. Whether or not things would have been better for Saudi Arabia had the old ways been adhered to is debatable.

 

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.  

 

[Ron19]

Off topic post and replies have been removed.