Saudi Arabia: seeking security (catch all)

[CrowBat]

My point is this: it appears that sometimes early this month (or earlier?) Russians threatened Turkey with deployment of tactical nuclear weapons 'in defence' of their contingent in Syria.

All the mumbo-jumbo by side (then the more of his stuff on Syria I'm reading, the more I'm starting to realize that Parry's 'insights' into that conflict are of similar quality like those of Kinzer), and perhaps my 'general order of appearance' (or 'official protocol'?) is not perfect, but to me this situation appears to have developed as follows:

- For years, i.e. nearly as long as there is a war in Syria, the West is de-facto signalling to its allies in the Middle East: 'we don't want to get involved there, but if you want, please do so';

- allies in question then got involved in a kind of 'minimalistic' fashion (through provision of aid to insurgents), but the West said, 'OK, but under our control, and don't you dare doing something we don't like';

(BTW, and ironically, while attempting to exercise this control the West curbed all sorts of Saudi and Turkish support for 'other insurgents' but left Qatar support JAN - even the Daesh, at least early on - as much as it likes...)

- through late 2013 and into early 2014, Syrian Sunni Arab insurgents were THE FIRST party to fight the Daesh; they were also the THE FIRST to defeat the Daesh and force it out of seven provinces in Syria; but, this is completely ignored by the West - even more so since the West launched its anti-Daesh 'war' in autumn 2014;

- since autumn 2014, the West is signalling: 'we want your participation in our war against the Daesh (and/or al-Qaida) in Syria' (Iraq is out of question since pro-Iranian regime there is refusing such an option);

- since spring 2015, GCC-allies are involved in Yemen - in an action supported by the USA;

- because of their ops in Yemen, around the same time GCC-allies minimalized their participation in war against Daesh in Syria (which is no surprise, given this was limited to support of Kurds, and entirely ignored needs of Syrian Sunni Arabs);

- this 'minimalisation' in turn prompted critique from the West - as if Western allies in the Middle East 'must' fight the West's war against the Daesh, although neither Syrian nor Iraqi governments want them to do so (this is so ridiculous, I must laugh while typing this);

- then, in autumn 2015, the US switched its support in Syria to de-facto 'Kurds only', while at the same time US officials bitterly complained about lack of support from GCC-allies for its war against the Daesh;

- in early 2016, Turkey and Saudi Arabia announced they're ready to send troops to fight Daesh in Syria; but now - and 'all of a sudden' - the West is not the least delighted about this idea?

- Instead, the West is now exercising pressure upon Saudi Arabia and Turkey to ignore their own interests in Syria (i.e. to stick to Western policy of acting against these interests),

- while Russians threat Turkey with deployment of nuclear weapons.

- What a 'surprise' then, the Saudis reply with 'outing' about their nukes (arguably: in fashion that might appear 'unusual' to us in the West, then people here seem to kind of expect this king Salman to appear on the TV and say, 'yes, we can, i.e. have nukes'),

- and this is 'supported' by similar outings of people in the USA who 'are in position to say' or 'should know' if Saudis have nukes (even if the same people obviously have no trace of clue what's going on in Syria, which is no surprise nor anything diminishing their potential authoritativeness in regards of Saudi nukes).

[davidbfpo]

A timely article, hat tip to WoTR, on this developing relationship and the author's very slim bio:

Sameer Lalwani is Deputy Director of the South Asia Program at the Stimson Center. Previously, he was a Stanton Nuclear Security Postdoctoral Fellow at the RAND Corporation.

Link:http://warontherocks.com/2016/02/wil...-balance-iran/

I found it odd no mention is made of the widespread opposition in Pakistan, including in parliament, to joining the anti-Houthi coalition led by KSA, in late 2015.

[davidbfpo]

I do wonder about The Daily Telegraph sometimes, it has some excellent columnists, but when I read Con Coughlin I often end up spluttering.

Here is his latest entitled:

Lessons the West must learn from the Gulf War, 25 years on

It starts with:

At a time when Western politicians are struggling to devise a coherent strategy to defeat the fanatics of Islamic State (Isil), the 25th anniversary of the First Gulf War... is a timely reminder of what can be achieved when the West forms an effective partnership with its Arab allies.

(It ends with) If the West is serious about finding effective regional partners to help defeat Isil, why not form a new coalition with the Saudis and their allies? If it worked so well in 1991, then why not now?

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-years-on.html

At least he does not advocate entering into an alliance with another ally in 1991, the Syrian official regime.

Then for reasons lost on me, the Saudi Ambassador in London, has a column too and what a title:

Saudi Arabia is bombing in Yemen to bring peace and stability

Referring to a recent critical UN report he writes:

And it should also be noted that the UN Report itself is based solely on satellite imagery and eyewitness testimony, which have proven to be highly unreliable in the past.

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...stability.html

[Granite_State]

In an article in the Atlantic I was reading the other day, a crazy statistic caught my eye:

The Saudis burn about a quarter of the oil they produce—and their domestic consumption has been rising at an alarming 7 percent a year, nearly three times the rate of population growth. According to a widely read December 2011 report by Chatham House, a British think tank, if this trend continues, domestic consumption could eat into Saudi oil exports by 2021 and render the kingdom a net oil importer by 2038.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...energy/395315/

[davidbfpo]

Via the Australian website of the Lowy Institute, a short pithy article by a ret'd Israeli Air Force officer:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/...s-to-war.aspx?

A few passages:

Tanks, combat aircraft and missiles are only as powerful as the people operating, maintaining and supporting them. And in this domain, Saudi Arabia has a very long way to go. Not much is known about the proficiency of Saudi Arabia's military as a fighting force. The only real war the Saudis have taken part in was Operation Desert Storm in 1991; and most of the fighting there was done by the US. More recently Saudi Arabia has been fighting in Yemen, but unsuccessfully so far. Foreign advisers speak about the difficulties in bringing Saudi Arabian soldiers to the desired combat readiness and proficiency.

(Concluding passage) Let me finish with a comment on 'Northern Thunder'. Exercises as large as 'Northern Thunder' take a very long time to plan and coordinate, and it also takes many months to gather the units together in one place. Yet, 'Northern Thunder' appeared in the media out of nowhere. (and nothing is known about it since it was announced). Where do you hide 350,000 troops? Are they really there?

[CrowBat]

Via the Australian website of the Lowy Institute, a short pithy article by a ret'd Israeli Air Force officer:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/...s-to-war.aspx?

A few passages:

"The only real war the Saudis have taken part in was Operation Desert Storm in 1991..."

Sounds like the author never heard of Yemen Wars...

************

Anyway, something that's a sort of a public secret ever since 2001, at least 2002, is now about to 'explode' into a major international affair.

Namely, in reaction to demands from the US Congress to publish full details about involvement of Saudi government in 9/11, Saudis are making their next dumb move:

Saudi Arabia Warns of Economic Fallout if Congress Passes 9/11 Bill

Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The Obama administration has lobbied Congress to block the bill’s passage, according to administration officials and congressional aides from both parties, and the Saudi threats have been the subject of intense discussions in recent weeks between lawmakers and officials from the State Department and the Pentagon. The officials have warned senators of diplomatic and economic fallout from the legislation.

Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, delivered the kingdom’s message personally last month during a trip to Washington, telling lawmakers that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts.

Several outside economists are skeptical that the Saudis will follow through, saying that such a sell-off would be difficult to execute and would end up crippling the kingdom’s economy. But the threat is another sign of the escalating tensions between Saudi Arabia and the United States.

The administration, which argues that the legislation would put Americans at legal risk overseas, has been lobbying so intently against the bill that some lawmakers and families of Sept. 11 victims are infuriated. In their view, the Obama administration has consistently sided with the kingdom and has thwarted their efforts to learn what they believe to be the truth about the role some Saudi officials played in the terrorist plot.
...

Of course, 'royals' in Riyad are not the only ones to blame: in essence, all of this is actually known since more than a decade. The issue is only that of the US government officially announcing this as a fact (in turn probably causing a mass of legal cases with demands for payment of damage against Saudi Arabia, just for example).

The actual reason for this issue being so 'sensitive' right now is that there were two US administrations (Qusay Bush & Oblabla) that did their best to prevent this from happening - and instead cheerfully continued upping Sauds, selling arms worth hundreds of billions to them etc: had they made this known right from the start, nobody would have said a single word.

So, the question is rather: why all of that, was it worth it, and why now...?

[OUTLAW 09]

"The only real war the Saudis have taken part in was Operation Desert Storm in 1991..."

Sounds like the author never heard of Yemen Wars...

************

Anyway, something that's a sort of a public secret ever since 2001, at least 2002, is now about to 'explode' into a major international affair.

Namely, in reaction to demands from the US Congress to publish full details about involvement of Saudi government in 9/11, Saudis are making their next dumb move:

Saudi Arabia Warns of Economic Fallout if Congress Passes 9/11 Bill


Of course, 'royals' in Riyad are not the only ones to blame: in essence, all of this is actually known since more than a decade. The issue is only that of the US government officially announcing this as a fact (in turn probably causing a mass of legal cases with demands for payment of damage against Saudi Arabia, just for example).

The actual reason for this issue being so 'sensitive' right now is that there were two US administrations (Qusay Bush & Oblabla) that did their best to prevent this from happening - and instead cheerfully continued upping Sauds, selling arms worth hundreds of billions to them etc: had they made this known right from the start, nobody would have said a single word.

So, the question is rather: why all of that, was it worth it, and why now...?

There was a book written in German that involved deep research into the Hamburg AQ cell that was the core driver of 9/11. BTW that book is now extremely hard to find even on the used book side of the house.

While several were Saudi.....the German researcher and he was actually for his time extremely thorough.... stated he found no direct link to anyone in the Saudi government, intel services and or any funding funneled to Hamburg from KSA....all instructions, personnel and funding flowed from AQ central as it was an AQ central operation from start to end and part and parcel of AQ central OPEC.

AQ central had a deep distrust for anything Saudi so I cannot fathom AQ central "getting into bed with the Saudi security services".

WHY not instead truly and definitively look at the total failure of the US intel community and FBI mistakes where the "dots" were all there to be seen and connected BUT where not...then why not as AQ central was suppose to be on everyone's radar screen.......

THEN let's look at the alleged NSA intercepts that picked up on at least two of the 9/11 cells in the US BUT somehow did not connect them to AQ central...if true then why not should be the question.

WHAT is missing often from US articles about 9/11 is the serious "near miss" by a AQ sleeper cell in Us that darn near knocked down the Twin Towers with truck bomb...they barely missed seriously damaging one of the key supports that would have in fact caused the eventual crash of the Tower.

So with this fore warning JUST why did the US think another attack was not coming and against the same target set???

[davidbfpo]

Cited in part:

"The only real war the Saudis have taken part in was Operation Desert Storm in 1991..."

Sounds like the author never heard of Yemen Wars...

I agree, but somehow I expect very few people who were involved in the decision-making, let alone actual "boots on the ground" are now involved, let alone being listened to. Something in my memory tells me Egypt came to regard their "brotherly" intervention as their own Vietnam. The KSA did commit some troops, but it was mainly gold they contributed.

As Wiki reminded me this war was from 1962-1970. See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Yemen_Civil_War

Just found via Google a 21 pg paper:http://www.alexthorn.com/writings/Th...ptsVietnam.pdf

Once again your example reminds us that history has a habit of fading away, only to return and "bite" hard. Those who remind the decision-makers are all too often seen as "troublesome"; which seems to account for much of SWJ's infamy.