Egypt's Spring Revolution (2011-2013)

[CrowBat]

Crowbat -

I have to agree that the relationship with the KSA is mutually benificial. But I think the US' main "gain" out of the relationship is not oil (only 10.4% of US oil is from KSA, see here), but security and stability.

OK, let me try again:

"... it functions so that the Sauds sell their oil reliably and often at lower prices, and recycle these [I meant the Petro-Dollars they earn that way] through massive purchases of US armament or investments in the USA, both of which keep large parts of the US economy in running condition."

Regarding "security and stability"... You say, "One of the main benefits is that the Saudis (along with the UAE and Qatar) help us deter the Iranians from dominating the region. This is one of the main reasons why we provide them with weapons, in spite of the drawbacks that you have pointed out."

I understand your standpoint and I'm ready to go as far as to say, "theoretically, it's perfectly OK". Practically, however, I often see it as "greasing mud into the eyes". Why? Well, I think this is not going to be possible to explain without going into quite some details.

I see myself as "specialized" in studying "air forces" and "ops". When I study these two topics in regards of KSA I can reach back on quite a fresh experience: the "war" against al-Houthis, in Yemen. In very short, somewhat generalizing terms, for the local military RSAF this war developed as follows: after being put on alert, the military rushed the local brigade, reinforced by certain "elite" elements (rangers, para-commandos etc.) to the scene. Driven rather by religious fevour than all the 20 years of training it received from its US instructors, this "unit" did exactly the same that led to an early demise of two "elite" armoured brigades of the Yemeni Army only a few weeks before: namely, it charged the enemy positions frontally even though having next to no clue what's going on. I hope that many here are going to agree, that it's little surprising the Saudi unit in question suffered considerable losses in the process (over 120 KIA and MIA on a single day).

This "slap on the fingers" convinced the rest of the military that this is going to be a "slightly" more serious affair than expected. Thus, even though al-Houthis surely did not bombard Riyadh or disrupted the work of the Saudi military on its home-bases in any other fashion, they required another three days to set up a joint command capable of coordinating the work of all the involved branches. Surely enough, the RSAF was airborne and flying very intensively, providing 24/7 air cover for the (mauled) brigade that was in contact with al-Houthis at the border, and the troops on the ground knew to appreciate the almost permanent presence of F-15s and Tornados above them - particularly in the light of the fact that many of them proved overweight, unfit, that their assault rifles proved too short-ranged, that they lacked even such basic equipment like binoculars etc., not to talk about their lack of any kind of training in navigation and manoeuvring in the field... But, eventually it turned out that F-15s and Tornados operating at above 15,000ft is not the best possible idea, particularly if this happens because somebody in Washington convinced al-Sauds that the Iranians supplied al-Houthis with MANPADs - while this was simply not truth... (al-Houthis actually supplied themselves from depots of some 20 various Yemeni arms-dealers, all of whom have since been arrested by the authorities; but that with "Iranians delivering arms" appeared more convenient as a PR-tool, so why change it only because it proved wrong?)...Whatever, intensive flying soon began pointing at maintenance problems related to the fact that there are jobs the RSAF ground crews simply refuse to learn doing; i.e. they order their "foreign contract personnel" to do it since in their opinion the party that sold them the equipment that's "not functioning" is responsible for making it functional again....Something like another "three days later", it turned out the RSAF is also short on PGMs, and in need of urgent resupply (I could go into some...funny...details about "whys" here too)....etc., etc., etc.. Once this all was over, the Saudis declared themselves for "victorious" - and then for "better than the Israelis", then they think they fought a "Hezbollah-type" force and won a war against it (ssshhh, please, don't tell them that the Yemeni government eventually felt forced to accept a ceasefire with al-Houthis and give them a share in power and politics), while the Israelis failed to do so in Lebanon, back in 2006....

And now imagine this "military" finding itself on the receiving end of an Iranian attack...

Thus, in summary, you say, "One of the main benefits is that the Saudis (along with the UAE and Qatar) help us deter the Iranians from dominating the region. This is one of the main reasons why we provide them with weapons, in spite of the drawbacks that you have pointed out."

I say: sure, the Saudis do not deliver as much oil to the US as certain other countries (see Canada for example), but, sure, they do buy much more US armament than the Canadians (in turn keeping large segments of the US heavy industry afloat etc., etc., etc.). The problem is that they can't really use this armament, nor does their government cares for its military to become capable of using this armament - and thus KSA remains dependable on US support should the situation become really serious.

Means: I'm sure the US means it serious with "security and stability"...But as it is, the situation is resulting in none, then as far as I know the Iranians (those between them that matter), they are not really deterred even by the US-, not to talk about the Saudi military.

I submit that you would be hard-pressed to argue that allowing Iran to dominate the region would be a good idea.

I confess I'm convinced that Iran dominates the US minds already since years, and that - in the long run - I simply do not see the way the US can prevent them from dominating at least certain parts of the area.

[Bob's World]

Crowbat -

I have to agree that the relationship with the KSA is mutually beneficial. But I think the US' main "gain" out of the relationship is not oil (only 10.4% of US oil is from KSA, see here), but security and stability. One of the main benefits is that the Saudis (along with the UAE and Qatar) help us deter the Iranians from dominating the region. This is one of the main reasons why we provide them with weapons, in spite of the drawbacks that you have pointed out.

I submit that you would be hard-pressed to argue that allowing Iran to dominate the region would be a good idea.

V/R,

Cliff

Ok, I'll bite: How exactly do the KSA, UAE and Qatar "help us" deter Iran?

Pre-invasion Iraq certainly helped deter Iran, but it was the alliance with the US that was leveraged by those other three to deter not just Iran, but each other as well. The KSA could go a long way to solving some of their own internal revenue shortfall problems by rolling up a rich little neighbor or two (mostly formed by the Brits to ensure their share of the oil coming out of the AP following their eviction from Iran).

Israel and the Gulf States work hard to keep the U.S. thinking of Iran as "the enemy." Iran is not the enemy, Iran is both the past and the future of that region. Sure the Brits and the U.S. are both bitter because Iran dared to stand up and tell us both in turn to 'F-off,' but that fact alone validates the importance of Iran. What other state in the Middle East could expel both the UK and the US? That's that kind of moxie real Americans respect.

Someday we will either let the tail wag the dog, and get us into a fight with Iran; or we will swallow our pride and re-establish relations with this important nation over their protests. I hope it is the latter.

[omarali50]

The US (or some parts of the US policy-making apparatus) keep repeating some line about the need to "deter Iran" which I just cannot figure out. We keep hearing that Israel is responsible for this nugget of strategic wisdom, but I still cannot figure out how Iran is a mortal threat to Israel?
It seems to me, its mostly about selling arms and making money for particular individuals (agents and contractors) and corporations (especially oil companies and arms manufacturers). All the rest is BS. Which is not necessarily a disaster provided the tail does not get to wag the dog....

[Ken White]

The US (or some parts of the US policy-making apparatus) keep repeating some line about the need to "deter Iran" which I just cannot figure out...

and some of us have an aggrandized sense of injury. There are also some who must have an 'enemy' against whom to fulminate or 'plan' -- strange though that is...

As Crowbat said, they're going to dominate parts of the ME and are going to influence things further afield. That's reality -- anathema to US politicians.

[carl]

What other state in the Middle East could expel both the UK and the US? That's that kind of moxie real Americans respect.

It would be a lot easier if I didn't keep reading about how their gov. wants to kill me.

[omarali50]

Carl, you shouldnt believe everything you read. As far as I can tell, the US govt is more interested in killing some iranians than the Iranian govt is in killing random Americans. I have no love for the current regime in Iran (which has lost a lot of legitimacy domestically and will eventually have a new round of troubles at home, no matter what the US does) but really, if you leave them alone, they are very unlikely to send someone ten thousand miles to kill you. Its not a priority for them.
I am not saying they dont support some terrorists (even terrorists in this hemisphere, as in Latin America) but its more ### for tat than any real plan to launch war against the US no matter what.
But beyond the regime (which is fast becoming a dictatorship of the revolutionary guards) the people or Iran have no fundamental quarrel with the US. And Iran is a real country, with a real history and deep culture and its going to be around no matter what. Treating them with a little bit of respect would not be a bad idea.

[tequila]

Given Mubarak's refusal to resign despite elaborate hinting throughout the day, combined with Suleiman's order to the protesters to return home - we may finally see major bloodshed in the streets tomorrow. I think some Egyptian captains and majors are not going to sleep well tonight.

[carl]

Carl, you shouldnt believe everything you read. As far as I can tell, the US govt is more interested in killing some iranians than the Iranian govt is in killing random Americans. I have no love for the current regime in Iran (which has lost a lot of legitimacy domestically and will eventually have a new round of troubles at home, no matter what the US does) but really, if you leave them alone, they are very unlikely to send someone ten thousand miles to kill you. Its not a priority for them.
I am not saying they dont support some terrorists (even terrorists in this hemisphere, as in Latin America) but its more ### for tat than any real plan to launch war against the US no matter what.
But beyond the regime (which is fast becoming a dictatorship of the revolutionary guards) the people or Iran have no fundamental quarrel with the US. And Iran is a real country, with a real history and deep culture and its going to be around no matter what. Treating them with a little bit of respect would not be a bad idea.

No quarrel with the Iranian people at all. Wish them all the best and my option for dealing with the country might surprise some people....But, when I am over on my little corner of the imperial frontier, those Quds force guys really do want to kill me. They just wait for the word, which thanks to stuxnet they haven't got. They have killed a lot of our guys.

I know most of the people are ok. Its those un-ok's who control the place...

[Bob's World]

Containment doesn't work without something to "contain," and I really think it is as much our inablitiy to break free from "containment-think" as anything that keeps us poking sticks into places like N. Korea, Iran, Venezuala and even China.

This is why I am for a retirement of containment as the centerpiece of how we engage the world. It demands threats to encircle, and a systems of controls over those who live in that circle to implement.

Also an aspect of why I think we need to elevate Populaces in our equations of engagement. When we have the ass with the govenrment of Iran to be specific in our in our language to say "The government of Iran must..." rather than the standard lumping together of "Iran must..."

We live in dynamic times. We just need to get a bit more dynamic.

[carl]

Containment doesn't work without something to "contain," and I really think it is as much our inablitiy to break free from "containment-think" as anything that keeps us poking sticks into places like N. Korea, Iran, Venezuala and even China.

I gotta ask. The phrase "poking sticks" implies being provocative, and in the context of your sentence, needlessly so.

How are we provoking the Kim dynasty in North Korea, other than objecting to them doing things like sinking ROK navy ships and killing the occasional South Korean over the years?

[Dayuhan]

The KSA could go a long way to solving some of their own internal revenue shortfall problems by rolling up a rich little neighbor or two

The Saudis don't have internal revenue shortfall problems. They had a budget surplus well up in the billions in 2010, and that's after cranking public spending up so high they had a hard time finding more things to spend money on.

Too often we base assessments of Saudi conditions on data and observations that reach back to the oil glut. Big mistake: times have changed. There's also a huge difference between the way this oil surge is being handled and the way the last one was handled: partly because they see the logic in it and partly because they're worried about expropriation of assets in the event of another major terror attack, most of the money is being invested within the country. Salaries in the civil service (the largest employer by far of Saudi citizens) have seen huge increases, and there's been huge spending on job-creating industries, schools, medical facilities, infrastructure, etc. That may be a blatant payoff, but it is working: there's a lot less anti-government sentiment than there once was. As with China, I really don't see major civil disorder happening in the KSA or the Gulf states unless there's a major economic shock. The tension of the mid/late 90s is largely gone.

We need to get it through our heads that we are not "providing" arms to the Saudis to advance our purposes. They are buying them, for their own purposes. Maybe silly purposes, and they may or not be achieving those purposes, but that's their choice. It's not about something we are doing to deter Iran, or for any other purposes. It's a business deal. They are initiating it. It's not us helping or using them. If we didn't sell the stuff they could buy equivalent stuff elsewhere. If we backed out of these deals, how many seconds would it be before alternative proposals from China, Russia, the UK, France, etc were on the table? The $120 billion that the GCC countries are spending on US arms is largely seen in that region as charity, and there is some merit in that perception.

The US is not protecting the Saudis from their own people, or enabling them to oppress their own people, or giving permission to oppress their own people. They can do that themselves, they don't ask our permission, and they don't care what we think. They are not dependent on us and we do not control them.

The actual amount of oil the Saudis sell the US is irrelevant. Even if we didn't buy a drop from them, the US would still be very concerned with keeping that oil flowing, because if it stopped, the people who were buying it would then compete with us to buy the oil we are buying, and prices for everyone would go through the roof. It's not about how much they sell us, it's about the percentage of overall world production they represent, and the very large percentage of world reserve production that they represent.

We fought Saddam when he threatened the Gulf oil supplies, and we would fight Iran if they threatened the Gulf oil supplies. This has nothing to do with protecting the Saudis or defending the Saudis. It has to do with protecting and defending ourselves. Quite aside from the fact that invading and absorbing your neighbors is illegal and unacceptable no matter what their form of government is, the US cannot allow that much oil to fall under the control of a government openly hostile to us. It's not about empowering the Saudis to oppress, it's not subservience, it's not us doing their bidding... it's just a common interest. Common interests are what make alliances, not similar political systems or similar ideas on government-populace relations.

Israel and the Gulf States work hard to keep the U.S. thinking of Iran as "the enemy." Iran is not the enemy, Iran is both the past and the future of that region.

Iran is part of the past and future of that region. So are Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and others.

The Iranian government also works hard to sustain the perception of hostility. They are deeply invested in that perception and they need it to continue. It's not just about the history. The Vietnamese have as much historical reason as the Iranians to dislike the US, but their government has astutely recognized that getting along with the US and the west is in their interest, and set the past aside. The Iranian government could do the same, if they chose to. They don't choose to. They have as much to do with sustaining hostility as we do, and they do it intentionally and for their own purposes.

Of course we have no quarrel with the Iranian people. We had no quarrel with the Japanese people in 1942, but we still fought a devastating war with the country. Hostility is a choice of government, and it's not just a blind reaction to past affronts. It's a decision and it reflects a purpose. That purpose may be the government's, not the people's, but it's governments that start wars.

I don't think "the Iranians" per se have any real desire to invade the states across the Gulf and start a region-wide war. I do suspect, though, that there are people in that Government who have some ambitions and ideas, and it is possible that they could choose to carry them out. If their people allow them to try, and follow them, there will be a big mess, even if we have no quarrel with their people.

Someday we will either let the tail wag the dog, and get us into a fight with Iran; or we will swallow our pride and re-establish relations with this important nation over their protests. I hope it is the latter.

I doubt that the current Iranian government would allow that to happen, even if we tried: that dance takes two. They need somebody to hate: a common enough ting in repressive, extremist governments.

[Dayuhan]

Given Mubarak's refusal to resign despite elaborate hinting throughout the day, combined with Suleiman's order to the protesters to return home - we may finally see major bloodshed in the streets tomorrow. I think some Egyptian captains and majors are not going to sleep well tonight.

Mass rebellions of this sort are often decided, in the end, by a simple choice made by the armed forces and police. The order to disperse the crowd, to fire on them if necessary, will eventually be given. They will obey or they will not. If they obey, we have a Tiananmen Square scenario and the government continues, albeit unsteadily and in this case possibly unsustainably.

Mubarak will not leave because the crowd wants him to leave. He certainly isn't going to leave because the US President tells him to, no matter what some believe. He will leave if his army refuses to follow his orders. He won't have any choice.

[omarali50]

Dayuhan, you make a lot of sense.

[Dayuhan]

Dayuhan, you make a lot of sense.

Thank you, so do you

[tequila]

Mass rebellions of this sort are often decided, in the end, by a simple choice made by the armed forces and police. The order to disperse the crowd, to fire on them if necessary, will eventually be given. They will obey or they will not. If they obey, we have a Tiananmen Square scenario and the government continues, albeit unsteadily and in this case possibly unsustainably.

Mubarak will not leave because the crowd wants him to leave. He certainly isn't going to leave because the US President tells him to, no matter what some believe. He will leave if his army refuses to follow his orders. He won't have any choice.

But I wonder if parts of the Army are going to begin thinking for themselves. This is a conscript army, whose company and battalion officers come from the same urban middle class which is flooding the streets of Cairo and spearheading the strikes and demonstrations. Omar Suleiman had a chance to oversee some sort of transition, but he threw that chance away tonight with his "all you meddlesome kids go home" speech. The higher ranks of the armed forces appear to be with Mubarak, at least for now. The question is if the colonels, majors, and captains will follow them if the choice is between saving an 83-year-old Mubarak or firing on their own people.

[Dayuhan]

But I wonder if parts of the Army are going to begin thinking for themselves. This is a conscript army, whose company and battalion officers come from the same urban middle class which is flooding the streets of Cairo and spearheading the strikes and demonstrations. Omar Suleiman had a chance to oversee some sort of transition, but he threw that chance away tonight with his "all you meddlesome kids go home" speech. The higher ranks of the armed forces appear to be with Mubarak, at least for now. The question is if the colonels, majors, and captains will follow them if the choice is between saving an 83-year-old Mubarak or firing on their own people.

Exactly. That's why there's a choice. The choice happens on all kinds of levels. For the footsoldier it may be a decision not to fire on his own people. For an officer it might be the realization that the regime is probably going to lose, and committing to the wrong side could be big trouble.

When we had this situation in Manila, many units near the city delayed movements, giving all kinds of excuses: the commanders wanted to avoid committing until they had a better read on which way the wind was blowing and which side was likely to come out on top. That's especially true a few steps below the top level, where people haven't had an opportunity to feather a nice cushy nest abroad for retirement if things go south. Nobody wants to be caught on the wrong side when the music stops, especially the people who don't have a bolt hole and are not influential enough to avoid being thrown to the sharks when somebody has to take the rap for the bloodshed.

All kinds of things influence these decisions. Again in Manila, the first real head-to-head between the armed forces and the crowd involved Marine units just back from combat in Mindanao. They were clearly not prepared to cope with crowd control or a confrontation with a crowd. When the first of their armored vehicles knocked down a wall (they cut through an empty lot to circumvent a barricade on a major thoroughfare) the driver came face to face with a group of maybe 3-4 guys standing in front of him. I don't know what orders he had, but he stopped. Once he stopped, a few dozen more people jumped in. When soldiers on foot came through the hole in the wall the people who came forward to meet them were women and middle aged men, well dressed, respectable people. The soldiers just stopped, didn't seem to know what to do. Within 10 minutes there were 500 people in front of them, in 30 minutes there were 5000. It snowballed from there. If there had been a dozen thugs with tear gas and truncheons in front of the Marines they would have gone through with ease. If anyone from the crowd had thrown a rock or a bottle things could have gone to #### in a heartbeat.

I don't think anyone but those individuals knows the names of those few guys who stood unarmed and did not move as a big chunk of steel rolled at them. I don't think anyone remembers the driver who stopped. I saw a man maybe 50 walk straight at a nervous kid who was pointing a rifle at him. He put his hands out and said "hijo, hindi kami kalaban" ("son, we are not enemies"). That's not from a news report: I was standing next to him. For sure nobody remembers his name. That little cluster of moments, though, had a huge influence on what followed.

It comes down to moments, and anyone who says they know what will happen is full of it. Having been there and done that I know how those people in the street feel, and I hope it goes right for them... but we shouldn't pretend the key choices are going to be made by the US, or by Mubarak or his officials, or by the leaders of the opposition. It's very likely that the people who will be involved in the key moments do not know that in a few hours or days or weeks they will stand center stage.

We will see.

[Bob's World]

Not sure how this will play with the military, but having worked with these guys for several months I know how they think. There is no "commander's intent" in this culture. An order is black and white, and has no gray. Opportunity and risk alike are ignored in favor of doing exactly what one is told and no more or no less. Detailed planners and competent, oh yes. Independent thinkers? No way.

There is a rigid chain of command and no short cuts. Like a line of ants where if you break the trail the entire column stops and mills about. The LT talks to the CPT, who talks to the Major, who talks to the LTC, etc all the way up to Mubarak, then back down again; for virtually every matter. The populace will be way inside the OODA loop of the military. Down side is, that an order to attack is probably even harder to turn off that it is to turn on. But if the populace moves to where the Army isn't, the Army will likely sit and guard the empty space where the populace was.

[CrowBat]

We need to get it through our heads that we are not "providing" arms to the Saudis to advance our purposes. They are buying them, for their own purposes. Maybe silly purposes, and they may or not be achieving those purposes, but that's their choice. It's not about something we are doing to deter Iran, or for any other purposes.

Few observations and some rhethoric questions, out of pure curiosity...

Perhaps this is "reality", i.e. the world is really such a nice place. In the media, it looks like this (all nicely sorted out for the first source that reported it, and in chronological order):

As first, there is a report that the U.S. [is] Set to Offer Huge Arms Deal to Saudi Arabia, $20 billion dollar deal. Then there is the usual outcry: Israel cautious on US-Saudi arms deal. This problem is then solved in following fashion: Israel hails US military aid rise, over $30 billions! - in reaction to which there is plenty of praise: Israel Says No Objections to US Gulf Arms Deal.

But, now the US admin has a "problem": how to "explain" all of these sales to a country from which 14 out of 19 idiots from 9/11 came - plus provision of billions of US-taxpayer's money to Israel?

Hey, there is a solution! Let's launch some fake news about the threat both of these "allies" are facing: Iran buys 250 long-distance Sukhoi fighter-bombers, 20 fuel tankers, from Russia. (Should somebody have a problem with the source, here the same from a far more "authoritative" source: Reports: Iran to buy jets from Russia - the one above was just the first to launch the "idea"). And should that prove as "not enough" ("OMG, it could happen somebody to read such Iranian denials like this one": Iran Denies Purchase of Russian Fighters), this is at least as good for the same purpose: Iran 'pays Syria to spurn Israel.

As should be known, meanwhile, this affair did not end with a US$20, but a 60 billion deal...and, of course, anybody who comes to the idea to connect the dots in the same fashion like done above, must be a "conspiracy theorist". Therefore, it is so that the Saudis must be buying their weapons "for their own purposes", for example, as nicely explained here: Saudi king to press Obama for advanced F-15s to counter 'Iranian threat', or here: Cordesman: US Arms Sales To Saudi Arabia To Help Secure Saudi Oil Flow.

Surely enough, we are then often surprised when they get these weapons, but do not (or cannot) make use of them. For example, whenever there is a talk about the "threat from Iran", they cry for help - irrespectively how many weapons, ammo and instruction they have bought already: Saudi Arabia urges US attack on Iran to stop nuclear programme. And if one call brings no response, then Saudi king ‘repeatedly requested’ US attack Iran: WikiLeaks documents.

Obviously, nothing happened, i.e. their call received a negative answer. But still: if they need this armament for their protection and if it is so that "if we don't sell them, they'll get it somewhere else", then why do they call the US for..."help"?

(Well, good they have introduced a number of methods of reducing dependence on foreign military manpower in the last 20 years).

So, what's then the purpose of what the Saudis are doing? There is a good explanation:

It's a business deal. They are initiating it.

Apparently, it is (a business deal), and they do (initiate such deals). At the first look. At the second, the situation is...hm..."slightly" different, then most of what they bought recently (say, the last 5-6 years) "reads" like steps taken to remedy the "problems" pointed at in the following...."study" ('had to prevent myself from writing "arms catalogue"): Saudi Arabia Enters the Twenty-First Century.

But then, it's obviously far more logical, almost "self-understanding", that the mentioned study and all these media reports followed each other by pure accident. Just business, nothing personal.

We fought Saddam when he threatened the Gulf oil supplies, and we would fight Iran if they threatened the Gulf oil supplies. This has nothing to do with protecting the Saudis or defending the Saudis. It has to do with protecting and defending ourselves.

Perhaps I'm naive, but if this is the case, then why are we all the times explained the contrary, i.e. that all these sales are very much related to "protecting and defending the Saud[i]s"?

And vice-versa: if this has to do with protecting the USA, West, rest of the world, Moon, the Mars people or whatever else, then why is the extremism spreading and the situation (see Iraq and Pakistan) worsening, instead of improving?

Quite aside from the fact that invading and absorbing your neighbors is illegal and unacceptable no matter what their form of government is, the US cannot allow that much oil to fall under the control of a government openly hostile to us.

But Saddam was...OK, not "openly" but still... very friendly to the USA, back in the 1950s, again in the 1980s (see Rick Francona's "From Ally to Adversary", for example). His country was not only removed from the list of countries supporting terrorism, back in 1983, but it also received very "nice" loans, combat helicopters, and even ingredients for "senf". The ties became so close, that between 1986 and 1988, he several times requested deliveries of F-4 Phantom fighters. Indeed, even as of July 1990, he politely requested - and received - a "permission" (well, sort of it) for the "Kuwait business". And, if he would still be around to ask (not that I'm sorry he isn't), I'm sure even today he couldn't reasonably explain to himself, how come his person and his country then found itself on the receiving end of so much hatred and a major military attack by the same powers he has been said he is protecting against the Islamic extremism in Iran for an entire decade... (I'll not go into such "curious" details like the Iraqi "Kari" IADS being at its weakest exactly along the border to the KSA).

The Iranian government also works hard to sustain the perception of hostility. They are deeply invested in that perception and they need it to continue. It's not just about the history. The Vietnamese have as much historical reason as the Iranians to dislike the US, but their government has astutely recognized that getting along with the US and the west is in their interest, and set the past aside. The Iranian government could do the same, if they chose to. They don't choose to.

Going back into "Devil's advocate mode" (until further notice): But, they did. They have supported US operations against the Taliban in Afghanistan, in 2001 and 2002. They wholeheartedly supported the case against Saddam, even applauded Bush and Powell in the UN. It's a "public secret" that a large number of the Tomahawks, plus a good deal of F-117- and B-1-attacks against Iraq in March 2003 went through the Iranian airspace - which would be impossible (at least equal to an act of war) without an agreement with Tehran. They have written almost a dozen of letters to the White House ever since, but never got a single response (BTW, in Iran it's considered as a "very brazen act", indeed "major offense" not to answer to somebody's letter). All they've got in response are threats, sanctions and yet more threats - all of these released through the media. So, what shall they do if the US simply refuses to get along with Iran (or, worse yet: have no clue how to do that)?

All they can say is, "sorry, we did not start" - which they really didn't (see the already mentioned Op Ajax).

[/End "Devil's advocate mode"]

So, we have the US that "didn't start", and the Iranians that "didn't start", and the Saudis that appear to be "initiating" but actually react to highly a successful, years-long PR-campaigns etc., i.e. they also "didn't start". (Trying to get myself back to the topic) There is also Egypt that "didn't start". Nobody started this; all is "mutual interest".

Hm... this is still prompting at least one "unpleasant question": what is the only common factor in all these cases?

[tequila]

And ... he is gone.

No reports of bloodshed. Apparently the Army allowed the crowd through to surround the state TV station.

One wonders how long Suleiman will last. I doubt very long at all.

[CrowBat]

Hosni Mubarak resigns as president

Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president, has resigned from his post, handing over power to the armed forces.

Omar Suleiman, the vice-president, announced in a televised address that the president was "waiving" his office, and had handed over authority to the Supreme Council of the armed forces.

It seems now it's the military that makes decisions.