Saudi Arabia denounces U.S. Senate position on Khashoggi - statement

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, sandrabbit said:

As far as Iran goes, I rate the people very highly after having worked there in a few places. I was told whilst working offshore the the Iranian people consider their government Syrians or Palestinians. I can't say anything bad about the people but they could have made regime change themselves because the elections weren't rigged.

They don't get to elect the real leaders who are the mullahs and their allies.

[Morch]

13 hours ago, neeray said:

Of course they would denounce it. Simply put, the position didn't meet their needs !

But it is rewarding to know that the senate isn't directed by the "cash cow" that the Trump group is directed by.

 

Them arms deals hyped by Trump? They were approved by the Senate. Even during Obama's term, nevermind previous presidents and administrations. And it's not as if SA's ways came as a surprise, because had this "operation" not been botched, and without the gruesome media circus ensuing - they'd keep on approving them. Maybe while airing some concerns about Yemen and such.

 

It's the "right" thing to do at this time, because of public attention and perception. Add some political "gains", perhaps. Not much of a feat looking principled (even if for a short while) next to Trump, eh?

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Anyway, in the case of the Saudis, it's not about overthrowing the regime, but just getting rid of one particularly toxic person.

I return to my earlier point, that the House of Saud has rather limited legitimacy to rule over the country. A seismic event like the expulsion of the presumed heir to power could have far-reaching unintended consequences.

 

This piece offers an analysis:

 

https://www.theglobalist.com/understanding-saudi-arabia-the-legitimacy-paradox/

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I return to my earlier point, that the House of Saud has rather limited legitimacy to rule over the country. A seismic event like the expulsion of the presumed heir to power could have far-reaching unintended consequences.

 

This piece offers an analysis:

 

https://www.theglobalist.com/understanding-saudi-arabia-the-legitimacy-paradox/

I don't know why you think that this article supports your position. Here's a quote from it:

 

"First, the House of Saud cannot afford to be outflanked at the fundamentalist end of the Sunni Islamic continuum. Therefore, their aggressive promotion of an ultra-orthodox creed.

Next, they must make strenuous efforts to coopt the proliferating jihadist movement that they themselves have encouraged – so as not to lose control of the faith’s direction."

 

MbS has taken on the fundamentalists and is cutting support for proselytizing. And actually, that's the one area where he's done good things.

[RickBradford]

Well, I don't know what "position" of mine you are referring to.

 

All I am saying is that the legitimacy of the House of Saud is fragile, and a seismic event like the unhorsing of MbS could be a very destabilising force. Who knows what the upshot might be.

 

As the saying goes: "Better the devil you know than the one you don't".

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

Well, I don't know what "position" of mine you are referring to.

 

All I am saying is that the legitimacy of the House of Saud is fragile, and a seismic event like the unhorsing of MbS could be a very destabilising force. Who knows what the upshot might be.

 

As the saying goes: "Better the devil you know than the one you don't".

Your position was that removing MbS would create instability. According to the article you cited in support of that, what MbS is doing would create instability.

Anyway, MbS wouldn't be the first Saudi leader removed against his will. It wouldn't be a putsch against the House of Saud. Just against one particular Saudi.

[RickBradford]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

According to the article you cited in support of that, what MbS is doing would create instability.

I linked to the article as an interesting analysis of the fragile legitimacy of the House of Saud, not in support of any "position". 

 

It may be that the House of Saud has such a tight grip on the kingdom that the forced removal of even such a pivotal figure as MbS could be handled without disruption. That would be the best outcome all round.

 

But there are many factions both within and outside the Kingdom who would see this as a good opportunity for some destabilising meddling. So the West, as far as its influence goes, would be wise to be cautious, in my estimation.

[bristolboy]

On 12/17/2018 at 8:15 PM, RickBradford said:

In this case, alienating Saudi Arabia means strengthening the hand of its principal rival, Iran, and it's by no means clear that would be a good outcome.

Apparently, strengthening Iran isn't such a bad outcome to Trump's way of thinking. That is, if he devoted any thought at all to leaving Syria.