Sri Lankan Man Arrested in Wichit for Illegally Constructing House

[rooster59]

Trump seeks to revive 'Arab NATO' to confront Iran

By Yara Bayoumy, Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel

 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump holds a chart of military hardware sales as he welcomes Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, U.S. March 20, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Trump administration is quietly pushing ahead with a bid to create a new security and political alliance with six Gulf Arab states, Egypt and Jordan, in part to counter Iran's expansion in the region, according to U.S. and Arab officials.

 

The White House wants to see deeper cooperation between the countries on missile defence, military training, counter-terrorism and other issues such as strengthening regional economic and diplomatic ties, four sources said.

 

The plan to forge what officials in the White House and Middle East have called an "Arab NATO" of Sunni Muslim allies will likely raise tensions between the United States and Shi'ite Iran, two countries increasingly at odds since President Donald Trump took office.

 

The administration's hope is that the effort, tentatively known as the Middle East Strategic Alliance (MESA), might be discussed at a summit provisionally scheduled for Washington on Oct. 12-13, several sources said.

 

    The White House confirmed it was working on the concept of the alliance with "our regional partners now and have been for several months."

 

Saudi officials raised the idea of a security pact ahead of a Trump visit last year to Saudi Arabia where he announced a massive arms deal, but the alliance proposal did not get off the ground, a U.S. source said.

 

Sources from some of the Arab countries involved also said they were aware of renewed efforts to activate the plan. Officials from other potential participants did not respond to requests for comment.

 

"MESA will serve as a bulwark against Iranian aggression, terrorism, extremism, and will bring stability to the Middle East," a spokesperson for the White House's National Security Council said.

 

    The spokesperson declined to confirm that Trump would host a summit on those dates and sources cautioned that it remains uncertain whether the security plan will be finalised by mid-October.

 

Similar initiatives by previous U.S. administrations to develop a more formal alliance with Gulf and Arab allies have failed in the past.

 

    Washington, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi accuse Iran of destabilising the region, fomenting unrest in some Arab countries through proxy groups and increasingly threatening Israel.

  

    The alliance would put emphasis on Gulf heavyweights Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates working closer together with the Trump administration on confronting Iran.

 

It is unclear how the alliance could immediately counter Tehran but the Trump administration and its Sunni Muslim allies have joint interests in the conflicts in Yemen and Syria as well as defending Gulf shipping lanes through which much of the world's oil supplies are shipped.

 

    A senior Iranian official told Reuters that "under the pretext of securing stability in the Middle East, Americans and their regional allies are fomenting tension in the region." He said the approach would have “no result” beyond “deepening the gaps between Iran, its regional allies and the U.S.-backed Arab countries."

 

Potentially a big obstacle to the planned alliance is a 13-month-old rift pitting Saudi Arabia and the UAE against Qatar, home to the largest U.S. air base in the region. Other Arab nations have accused Qatar of supporting terrorism, which it denies.    

   

    While one source said the administration is concerned the quarrel could be an obstacle to the initiative, he and an Arab official both said Riyadh and Abu Dhabi had assured Washington the rift would not pose a problem to the alliance.

 

The NSC spokesperson denied the rift was a hurdle.

 

    As Trump pursues his "America First" policy, the White House is eager to have U.S. allies worldwide shoulder more of the burden in confronting regional security threats.

 

The UAE is ready to deploy more troops across the Middle East to counter its foes as it believes it can no longer rely on Western allies like the United States and Britain, UAE minister Anwar Gargash said on Thursday.

 

Setting up a regional anti-missile defence shield, which the United States and Gulf countries have discussed for years without result, would be a goal for the alliance, a source familiar with the plan said, as well as training to upgrade the countries' militaries.

 

Tension with Iran has increased since Trump announced in May that the United States was pulling out of a 2015 international deal to limit Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

 

On Monday, Iran dismissed a warning from Trump that it risked dire consequences "the likes of which few throughout history have suffered before" if it made threats against the United States.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-07-28

[ezzra]

Pitting muslims against muslims, shia against sunni might just work, let the arab/muslim fight each other, or at least be in cahoot with the US providing bases and logistics to an armed conflict with Iran will show them that they're pretty much on their own in this....

[Chomper Higgot]

40 minutes ago, ezzra said:

Pitting muslims against muslims, shia against sunni might just work, let the arab/muslim fight each other, or at least be in cahoot with the US providing bases and logistics to an armed conflict with Iran will show them that they're pretty much on their own in this....

Sickening post.

[Lungstib]

The USA will back the biggest supplier of funds to terrorists, the KSA, in an effort to subdue another supplier, Iran. Never a word about bringing peace, always about selling weapons and making business from constant wars. 

After creating havoc with the original NATO he wants to create an Arab one. If you think the Europeans are in a mess wait and see how these guys get on. Chaos will ensue.

[mtls2005]

Hopefully, everyone will "pay their fair share"?

 

NATO bad, MESA good.

 

Defense contractors in the U.S. must be wetting themselves at the prospect of increased sales to an alliance.

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, mtls2005 said:

Hopefully, everyone will "pay their fair share"?

 

NATO bad, MESA good.

 

Defense contractors in the U.S. must be wetting themselves at the prospect of increased sales to an alliance.

I suspect US oil and gas companies are joining them in their water sports over the prospect of another American war in the Middle East jacking up oil prices.

[ezzra]

23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Sickening post.

Nothing sicking here, THIS IS MIDDLE EAST POLITICS, the enemy of my enemy is my friend , a tactics that are are as old as wars form the down of ages...

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, ezzra said:

Nothing sicking here, THIS IS MIDDLE EAST POLITICS, the enemy of my enemy is my friend , a tactics that are are as old as wars form the down of ages...

As old as false friends down the ages.

 

The tail is clearly wagging the dog.

[Samui Bodoh]

Forgive my cynicism, but...

 

I suspect that the Arab states would be willing to fight to the last American.

 

This won't end well...

 

[ezzra]

26 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Forgive my cynicism, but...

 

I suspect that the Arab states would be willing to fight to the last American.

 

This won't end well...

 

Pretty much the same as Iran proclaim to fight and die a martyr death, not the leadership live of course, the other idiots in the Iranian army that their live doesn't count as seen in the Iran-Iraq war...

[quandow]

Yeah . . . let's take two middle east countries,  arm one to the teeth and cripple the other with sanctions, stir up the pot then throw them both in the ring to see what happens. Trump diplomacy at its finest.

[geriatrickid]

2 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

Hopefully, everyone will "pay their fair share"?

 

NATO bad, MESA good.

 

Defense contractors in the U.S. must be wetting themselves at the prospect of increased sales to an alliance.

Except, that the   military weapons suppliers of Sweden, Italy, France, Germany UK and Russia, have a massive profitable business too. Sweden made a killing on its sales to the KSA. Canada too. It sold LAVs to the KSA despite all its hype about supporting peace.

[geriatrickid]

19 minutes ago, quandow said:

Yeah . . . let's take two middle east countries,  arm one to the teeth and cripple the other with sanctions, stir up the pot then throw them both in the ring to see what happens. Trump diplomacy at its finest.

You forget that the sanctions on Iran were a direct result of its support of groups such as Hizbollah, the Houthis  etc. The US imposed its sanctions on Iran because of the country's technical act of war that has never been resolved. The seizure of an embassy and the holding of hostages accompanied by the mass seizure of US private assets, was legally an act of war, because the US state was harmed. The fact that the USA did not respond militarily does not mean that the initial event was not a violent assault upon the USA. The embassy was deemed US soil and the attack by Iranians on that premises was a physical assault upon the USA. 

 

Since the initial attack upon the USA, Iran has repeatedly supported groups who have murdered and   attacked US  facilities. For example the mass murder of US Marine peacekeepers at their Lebanon barracks in 1982. Islamic Jihad was a proxy group of Iran. Iran has fomented war and terror attacks around the region and poses a threat to  nations who are of economic and political value to US interests.

 

The USA has the legal right to decide who it will  transact with. The Europeans who have never had  moral qualms in dealing with despots object because it  affects their profits. The Europeans are the hypocrites in this matter as they  lecture  the world on morality and yet there they are to  bust sanctions and launder  money. The real culprits  are the Europeans who have enabled the Iranian actions with their duplicity and dishonesty. Hello Germany, that's you with your "consumer" goods sales that had dual military purposes, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland with your money laundering facilities, Italy with your industrial equipment sales through the backdoor, the UK with its enhanced money laundering and financial instrument  facilities. etc.

[Tug]

No Donald you cant even cage kids and keep track of them no war for you 

[Srikcir]

4 hours ago, rooster59 said:

It is unclear how the alliance could immediately counter

Trump's withdrawal from the nuclear deal not only challenges a clear foreign policy in the Middle East that benefits prospective MESA members but works instead to increase tensions where they didn't previously exist.

Prospective members of MESA would surely be cautious that Trump would bully the alliance (as Trump has with NATO) to further Trump's objective for Iran regime change that has not been a concern by Middle East nations.

[Lungstib]

2 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

The seizure of an embassy and the holding of hostages accompanied by the mass seizure of US private assets, was legally an act of war, because the US state was harmed.

Which is all very well if you want to completely disregard the overthrow of an elected govt and the installation of the Shah. Was not Iran's state harmed?

 

2 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

Since the initial attack upon the USA, Iran has repeatedly supported groups who have murdered and   attacked US  facilities.

Which completely ignores the fact that the biggest attack on the USA in most peoples memory is 9/11, with 15 Saudi's and 2 UAE citizens involved and none from Iran. And yet the USA wants to get a coalition together with Saudi and UAE to deter Iran from causing trouble. They have already got 2 unwinnable wars going as a result of 9/11 and now wish to start a 3rd but seem to be hoping some Arab countries will get involved. Who does make these decisions?

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, ezzra said:

Pretty much the same as Iran proclaim to fight and die a martyr death, not the leadership live of course, the other idiots in the Iranian army that their live doesn't count as seen in the Iran-Iraq war...

You don't see significant difference between an Arab league depending on the American soldiers putting their lives at risk and the Iranian government put Iranian soldiers' lives at risk?

[Morch]

36 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Trump's withdrawal from the nuclear deal not only challenges a clear foreign policy in the Middle East that benefits prospective MESA members but works instead to increase tensions where they didn't previously exist.

Prospective members of MESA would surely be cautious that Trump would bully the alliance (as Trump has with NATO) to further Trump's objective for Iran regime change that has not been a concern by Middle East nations.

 

I don't think anything will come out of it, at least nothing practical or effective. Doubt relevant leaders are oblivious to the chaotic nature of Trump's policy making, and this will probably be reflected in committing to such an effort.

 

Not clear which specific previously non-existing tensions increased by Trump's policies you allege to. He did make matters worse on several occasions, but more to do with preexisting issues. Same goes for asserting Iranian regime change not being a concern among prospective members of MESA. One way or the other, many of them do see Iran as a threat, and that directly relates to the regime.

 

 

[nobodysfriend]

6 hours ago, rooster59 said:

...to create a new security and political alliance with six Gulf Arab states, Egypt and Jordan, in part to counter Iran's expansion in the region

preparing the war ...

[Odysseus123]

Ah..the old Baghdad Pact..

 

New lamps for old...or perhaps old lamps for new..

 

Who knows?

[simple1]

What has been the Israeli reaction to the concept?

Edited July 28, 2018 by simple1

[candide]

3 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

You forget that the sanctions on Iran were a direct result of its support of groups such as Hizbollah, the Houthis  etc. The US imposed its sanctions on Iran because of the country's technical act of war that has never been resolved. The seizure of an embassy and the holding of hostages accompanied by the mass seizure of US private assets, was legally an act of war, because the US state was harmed. The fact that the USA did not respond militarily does not mean that the initial event was not a violent assault upon the USA. The embassy was deemed US soil and the attack by Iranians on that premises was a physical assault upon the USA. 

 

Since the initial attack upon the USA, Iran has repeatedly supported groups who have murdered and   attacked US  facilities. For example the mass murder of US Marine peacekeepers at their Lebanon barracks in 1982. Islamic Jihad was a proxy group of Iran. Iran has fomented war and terror attacks around the region and poses a threat to  nations who are of economic and political value to US interests.

 

The USA has the legal right to decide who it will  transact with. The Europeans who have never had  moral qualms in dealing with despots object because it  affects their profits. The Europeans are the hypocrites in this matter as they  lecture  the world on morality and yet there they are to  bust sanctions and launder  money. The real culprits  are the Europeans who have enabled the Iranian actions with their duplicity and dishonesty. Hello Germany, that's you with your "consumer" goods sales that had dual military purposes, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland with your money laundering facilities, Italy with your industrial equipment sales through the backdoor, the UK with its enhanced money laundering and financial instrument  facilities. etc.

The attacks targeted at western countries and supported by Iran have stopped long time ago. Since then, Iran has restricted its influence to its courtyard and has widely benefitted from the door made wide open by the previous republican administration. Additionally, they have been the most active foreign state against IS.

What I know is who killed people in my country. The people killed by terrorists in Europe and in the USA, and also in Africa, have been killed by Al Quaida and IS. These two organisations have been directly or indirectly financed by Saudi Arabia and most of their sycophants educated in Salafist mosques.

I have no sympathy for Iran, but I certainly have much less sympathy for Saudi Arabia.

[sammieuk1]

Big Dons tweeting finger will be smoking as the Fatwa's roll in. 

[Srikcir]

14 minutes ago, simple1 said:

What has been the Israeli reaction to the concept?

Likely DOA.

From May 2017 What’s All This Talk About A Gulf-Israel Alliance?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/whats-all-this-talk-about-a-gulf-israel-alliance_us_5923d188e4b0b28a33f62f26

A formalized relationship between Israel and the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members "seems quite unrealistic given the positions embraced by Israel’s current government on the Palestinian question. [and this was before Trump's announcement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and relocated the US Embassy to Jerusalem] Odds are good that the GCC states will not follow Egypt and Jordan in establishing formal diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv, unless Israel agrees to the Arab-Peace Initiative or some agreed-upon peaceful resolution to the Palestine-Israel conflict that gives Palestinians a sovereign and independent state with East Jerusalem as its capital."

[candide]

12 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Likely DOA.

From May 2017 What’s All This Talk About A Gulf-Israel Alliance?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/whats-all-this-talk-about-a-gulf-israel-alliance_us_5923d188e4b0b28a33f62f26

A formalized relationship between Israel and the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members "seems quite unrealistic given the positions embraced by Israel’s current government on the Palestinian question. [and this was before Trump's announcement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and relocated the US Embassy to Jerusalem] Odds are good that the GCC states will not follow Egypt and Jordan in establishing formal diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv, unless Israel agrees to the Arab-Peace Initiative or some agreed-upon peaceful resolution to the Palestine-Israel conflict that gives Palestinians a sovereign and independent state with East Jerusalem as its capital."

As in the case of the trade conflict with China, Trump has shot his own foot. ?

[gamini]

7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Sickening post.

Totally agree. The poster continually spews hatred for Muslims and all Muslim countries. He praises the murder of innocent Palestinian women and children. He's pretty ignorant too. He thinks Syrian Golan Heights is in Israel and so on. 

[simple1]

38 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Likely DOA.

From May 2017 What’s All This Talk About A Gulf-Israel Alliance?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/whats-all-this-talk-about-a-gulf-israel-alliance_us_5923d188e4b0b28a33f62f26

A formalized relationship between Israel and the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members "seems quite unrealistic given the positions embraced by Israel’s current government on the Palestinian question. [and this was before Trump's announcement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and relocated the US Embassy to Jerusalem] Odds are good that the GCC states will not follow Egypt and Jordan in establishing formal diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv, unless Israel agrees to the Arab-Peace Initiative or some agreed-upon peaceful resolution to the Palestine-Israel conflict that gives Palestinians a sovereign and independent state with East Jerusalem as its capital."

Actually I was curious if the Israelis view the initiative as more of a negative, rather than a positive. Wouldn't have thought Trump is capable of dealing with unintended consequences.

Edited July 28, 2018 by simple1

[stevenl]

5 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

You forget that the sanctions on Iran were a direct result of its support of groups such as Hizbollah, the Houthis  etc. The US imposed its sanctions on Iran because of the country's technical act of war that has never been resolved. The seizure of an embassy and the holding of hostages accompanied by the mass seizure of US private assets, was legally an act of war, because the US state was harmed. The fact that the USA did not respond militarily does not mean that the initial event was not a violent assault upon the USA. The embassy was deemed US soil and the attack by Iranians on that premises was a physical assault upon the USA. 

 

Since the initial attack upon the USA, Iran has repeatedly supported groups who have murdered and   attacked US  facilities. For example the mass murder of US Marine peacekeepers at their Lebanon barracks in 1982. Islamic Jihad was a proxy group of Iran. Iran has fomented war and terror attacks around the region and poses a threat to  nations who are of economic and political value to US interests.

 

The USA has the legal right to decide who it will  transact with. The Europeans who have never had  moral qualms in dealing with despots object because it  affects their profits. The Europeans are the hypocrites in this matter as they  lecture  the world on morality and yet there they are to  bust sanctions and launder  money. The real culprits  are the Europeans who have enabled the Iranian actions with their duplicity and dishonesty. Hello Germany, that's you with your "consumer" goods sales that had dual military purposes, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland with your money laundering facilities, Italy with your industrial equipment sales through the backdoor, the UK with its enhanced money laundering and financial instrument  facilities. etc.

The US imposed sanctions, what business of the US is it there? Why not UN?

 

There was a very reasonable agreement between many countries, including Russia, European countries and USA, but USA decided it didn't like it after all because Israel doesn't like it. Really sad the present situation we're in, due to Israel and USA.

[Morch]

31 minutes ago, stevenl said:

The US imposed sanctions, what business of the US is it there? Why not UN?

 

There was a very reasonable agreement between many countries, including Russia, European countries and USA, but USA decided it didn't like it after all because Israel doesn't like it. Really sad the present situation we're in, due to Israel and USA.

 

A country doesn't need the UN's permission in order to enact sanctions.

 

As for the nonsense about "the USA decided" - don't recall all that many complaints when the USA "decided" (or rather, Obama did) signing the agreement. Had he tried passing it through the usual hoops, the USA's "decision" could have been different.