Last week, HRH Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz al Saud, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Britain and a member of the House of Saud, wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times entitled “Saudi Arabia Will Go It Alone“. Besides the usual ideological propaganda statements and a predictable litany of Saudi complaints about the West not doing enough, the piece contains a definite though vague threat:
The foreign policy choices being made in some Western capitals risk the stability of the region and, potentially, the security of the whole
Arab world. This means the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has no choice but to become more assertive in international affairs: more determined than ever to stand up for the genuine stability our region so desperately needs. (…) We will act to fulfill these responsibilities, with or without the support of our Western partners. Nothing is ruled out in our pursuit of sustainable peace and stability in the Arab World as King Abdullah — then Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince — showed with his leadership of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (…) We continue to show our determination through our support for the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian opposition. It is too easy for some in the West to use the threat of Al Qaeda’s terrorist operations in Syria as an excuse for hesitation and inaction. Al Qaeda’s activities are a symptom of the international community’s failure to intervene. They should not become a justification for inaction. The way to prevent the rise of extremism in Syria — and elsewhere — is to support the champions of moderation: financially, materially and yes, militarily, if necessary (…) Saudi Arabia will continue on this new track for as long as proves necessary.
Much is said here, much is alluded to and much remains unsaid. Let’s parse this text for the key words: more assertive, nothing ruled out, determined to support the “Syrian opposition” financially, materially and militarily. Sounds impressive, but is it really? What can the Saudis really do? Let’s look at their options:
1) Continue to pour money into the international Jihadist gang which has been waging war on Syria for several years: yes, that is an option, but that is nothing new, the Saudis, and their allies, have already been doing that for a long while and it did not help the insurgency. Pouring even more money into a largely defeated insurgency will really only serve to foster corruption and infighting and won’t do anything to reverse the situation.
2) Continue to send weapons to the insurgency: just as with money, the Saudis and their allies have already been doing this too, and it did them no good. Why? Because the insurgency has enough light weapons anyway, whereas bigger, more complex, weapons systems are harder to deliver and they need trained personnel to operate. Even more importantly, a few canons, tanks or multiple rocket launchers cannot be used effectively unless there is a full system of support around them: logistics, ammunition, intelligence, forward artillery controllers, etc. There is a reason why even when they could seize such weapons from government forces insurgencies rarely could use them effectively.
3) Directly intervene in Syria: well, he did say that “nothing is ruled out”, didn’t he? So could the Saudis simply send their military across the border and attack the government forces? Nope. Why? Simply because they do not share a common border and to get to Syria the Saudis would have to cross through western Iraq or Jordan. Could the Saudis send their air force to provide support to the insurgency? Yes but, again, that would mean overflying Iraq or Jordan, and the Saudis could only do that with the agreement of CENTCOM which is highly unlikely, to say the least (more about that later).
4) Attack Iran or let the Israelis use Saudi airfields for an attack on Iran: sounds crazy, doesn’t it? But think about again. First, after decades of semi-secret collaboration the Saudis and the Israelis have recently upgraded their relationship to something looking like a semi-official love story. And, look at the example of “nothing is ruled out” which Prince Mohammed gives in his text: the Saudi 2002 “Peace Initiative” offered to Israel. So if really “nothing is ruled out” then we should not rule out a sudden “strategic rapprochement” between the two crazy religious and racist regimes in the Middle East: the KSA and the Israel. Neither should we rule out a possible joint action against Iran by these two rogue states who now make no secret that feel that the Obama Administration is letting them down. Scary though? Yes, but considering the lunatics involved, one which we need to consider.
What is the main impediment for an Israel attack on Iran? Distance.
Sure, the Israelis could use ballistic or cruise missiles, but they would not provide the kind of flexible capabilities needed to severely degrade Iranian nuclear facilities and associated research centers. That is a job for the air force. The problem for the Israeli Air Force is not only that it does not have a common border with Iran and that they would need to get all sorts of authorizations to cross the airspace between Israel and Iran, but also that considering the distances involved an airstrike would require air-to-air refueling which, in turn, would require even more aircraft in the air to protect strike force. To make things worse, Iran is a big country, so several strike groups should be sent to different target groups to hit them and each strike group would have to be refueled, protected, and allowed to penetrate into Iranian airspace by dedicated suppression of enemy air defenses aircraft, including strike and electronic warfare aircraft. Bottom line – it would be a huge operation and one which the Israelis simply cannot carry out. But what if we assume that they could use Saudi airfields?
This option does not solve all problems, but it does address a lot of the worst problems involved in a direct attack from Israel. First, if the Israelis were allowed to refuel in Saudi Arabia, they would not need to rely on always very complicated and dangerous air-to-air refueling. That would immediately free many aircraft for other tasks. Second, taking off from Saudi Arabia would place all of Iran well within the reach of Israeli strike aircraft which could then be “spread” all over the Iranian airspace to support each other. The Israelis could even deploy helicopters to rescue
any downed pilot. Third, taking off from Saudi Arabia would make it possible to attack some key Iranian targets with little or no warning since they are literally across the Persian Gulf. The nuclear site at Bushehr could be revisited many times by successive waves from strike aircraft until the bomb damage assessment confirms that the target has been destroyed. Furthermore, if the KSA takes the decision to offer its airfields to the Israeli Air Force it might as well offer military support, if only to protect itself. If the Saudi Air Force decided to support the Israeli attack – especially with its AWACs and F-15s – it would make a huge difference. The bottom line is this: if the Saudis and the Isarelis really decided to join forces they could strike Iran in a way which the Israelis alone could never hope for. This would probably be a done deal by now if not for one big problem: CENTCOM.
All the fancy scenarios about a joint KSA-Isareli attack have to assume that the US CENTCOM would, at the very least, stand by and let such an attack proceed without taking any action. This is highly unlikely because the Americans understand perfectly that any Iranian retaliatory strike would be primarily directed at them at which point the US would be as involved as the KSA or Israel. From the American point of view, it would make no sense at all to let the Israelis and the Saudis start a war which would immediately result in the USA being involved. At that point, the USA would be far better off starting the war by itself not only because the USAF and Navy are far more powerful and capable than the combined forces of Israel and the KSA, but primarily because the USA would be in control of the time, scope and manner of execution of the attack. The USA, however, is clearly not interested in starting a war with Iran.
Knowing the Israelis, I am sure that they have carefully considered the option of simply ignoring Washington and going ahead with their customary chutzpah: let’s start the war for the goyim – they won’t dare stopping us anyway – and then see how they handle it.
Sounds crazy? Yes, of course. Because it is. Too crazy for the Saudis and the Israelis? I am not so sure. The Saudis fully understand that if Assad remains in power this would make the so-called “Shia crescent” even more powerful than before the war against Syria started. They also understand that if Assad is allowed to remain in power, the chances of a US attack on Iran will dramatically decrease, leaving them terrified of what their powerful neighbor might do. The same goes for Israel which, for its own reasons, is also terrified of the Shia alliance of Hezbollah – Syria – Iran. There can be no doubt at all that the Israelis and the Saudis would do anything for the Americans to get rid of the Shia threat against them. But it appears that at least for the time being the USA does not want to comply with their crazy wish.
But would the Americans dare to use force to stop an Israeli attack on Iran?
That is really the key question and while we will only have a definitive answer to that if such a situation happens, I personally strongly believe that yes, the Americans would basically tell the Israelis to “turn back or else…”
Why?
Because what is at stake here is much more than just a local fight between Shia, Wahabis and Zionists: a US-Iranian war would inflame all of the Middle-East and possible spread way beyond this region. According to some models, it could even result in a World War. And that is something which Obama or, rather, those who put Obama into the White House do not want. For all his long list of failings and screw-ups, there is one thing of significance which did do: he got rid of most of the Neocons and now the “Israel Firsters” have been replaced by “USA Firsters” and the latter have absolutely no intention to risk it all for the benefit of two rogue states lead by psychopaths. It is impossible to prove it, but my guess is that, if really pushed into a corner by the usual Israeli arrogance, the Americans will use force to prevent an unauthorized Israeli attack on Iran.
For one thing, it is not too hard to conceal from the general public what really took place in the airspace over Saudi Arabia in the middle of the night. Second, if the Americans actually open fire on the Israeli strike force, the Israelis will have no other option than to turn back. Finally, the Americans also have a much simpler option: they can prevent the Israelis from refueling on the Saudi airfields.
In other words, this Saudi-Israeli attack ain’t happening, at least as long as Obama or his allies are in the White House.
It appears that for all his grand statements about Saudi Arabia going at it alone, Prince Mohammed cannot back his words with some meaningful action. The House of Saud and the Netanyahu can make all the bellicose statements they want – unless Uncle Sam allows it there is absolutely nothing they can do. CENTCOM is the real master and overlord of the Middle-East and as long as CENTCOM does not want something – it ain’t happening.
The Saker
If the House of Saud allows Israel to use Saudi territory to strike Iran, what would be the reaction of the Saudi populace? I’m assuming that the Saudi public would be pissed. The House of Saud must worry about being deposed some day.
As you noted, Obama’s relationship with the neocons is cooler than that of his predecessors and likely successors. Why? I suspect that it’s because he sometimes asks himself the question “what’s in it for blacks?” In Middle Eastern wars the answer is “nothing”. It was widely reported that Colin Powell argued against the second Iraq war within the G.W. Bush administration behind closed doors, probably for the same reason.
There’s nothing in these wars for regular white Americans either, but they’ve been brainwashed not to ask themselves such selfish questions. Blacks feel free to ask themselves such questions, hence Obama’s lack of enthusiasm for these wars. That’s my theory, anyway.
Your reasoning seems to be correct, Saker.
Provided all the parties concerned (including the USA) remain reasonable/rational/wise.
I agree, the Saudi option looks like the most feasible for the Jews. Easier than using the airfields in the Caucasus, as people speculated a couple of years ago could be an option.
@Saker
1. Do you really think the Saudi’s would, even in the absence of the US and their forces and influence in the region, dare to attack Iran, even if in coalition with Israel? Iran is not like Iraq after a decade of sanctions where you can basically just walk in. Sure, Iran is under sanctions, but not on the same scale.
2. Why do you think Iran would attack US bases and forces if Israel and the Saudi’s attacked? I’d think Iran would be glad to just attack the Saudi monarchs, especially as the latter referred to Iran as the snake who’s head they’d like to have bitten off.
It appears to me the Saudi’s would be suicidal to enable or participate in an attack on Iran. Sure, Bibi and the Saudis could inflict some harm on Iran, but the would be a reaction. And especially one that affects the Saudis, as they are in reach. Yes, Bibi is crazy and paranoid, but would the Saud’s do it?
Honk
Most people have missed the main reason for the build-up and arming of jihadists in Syria. Pre-cursor to an attack/civil war in far more politically/strategically important Iraq next year at a time when it is taking oil production to 4-5mbpd from 3mbpd. Al Qaeda in Iraq is organising the systems you have noted for mid-range weaponry and gaining ground in Al Anbar and Niniveh provinces on the border of Syria for this reason.
An Iraq that gets to its potential at 7-8mbpd with a pipeline to a 4-5mbpd Iran (up from 3mbpd now) changes the picture of the Middle East significantly.
If the Izraelis put a torpedo into a US ship near the Iranian coast — a false flag attack — CENTCOM would do … what?
1) counter-attack against Iran
2) demand an explanation from Izrael
3) counter-attack against Izrael
4) create a cover story
ps.
Your lead paragraph ends with this:
“the piece contains a clear though vague threat:”
Could I make a suggestion?
“the piece contains a definite though vague threat:”
— my two cents
@EVERYBODY
A lot of you are *rightly* questioning whether it would make sense for the Saudis and/or the Israelis to attack Iran. The logical and rational answer is, of course, no. But we are dealing with “degenerate degenerates” (sorry) on one side, and psychopathic messianic racists on the other. And both of them have clearly said that they are pissed at what they perceive as a betrayal by the USA. So I have NO reason to assume rational behavior from these two rogue states (I have more faith in the rationality of the DPRK then of the KSA or Israel).
@Glossy:The House of Saud must worry about being deposed some day.
Yes. And they fear the Shia because of that because they (correctly) see them as the most powerful force in the Middle East. For them to beat the Iranians (assuming this is possible, which it ain’t) would be a dream come true and leave them alone to rule unimpeded.
@Honk:Why do you think Iran would attack US bases and forces if Israel and the Saudi’s attacked?
Because CENTCOM controls the entire region so even if a small pidgin decides to drop a small turd on the Iranian soil – CENTCOM allowed it to happen. If *anybody* attacks Iran, the Iranians will immediately conclude, correctly, that at the very least the USA allowed the attack to proceed.
@Anonymous: If the Izraelis put a torpedo into a US ship near the Iranian coast — a false flag attack — CENTCOM would do … what?
Yes, that is by far the biggest threat. Admiral Mullen told the Ziocrazies not to even think of it, but now he is gone. That really all depends on who is in control when that happens, but that is a HUGE risk, of course. But then, I suspect that the Americans are actutely aware of that too. Lots of smart people in the USN, that is certain.
“the piece contains a definite though vague threat:”
Thanks, will change that ASAP.
Cheers!
The Saker
The Iranian defence line is to do so much harm where it hurt´s the most and that is not primarily some US bases surrounding it but rather bombing Saudi-Arabia, now clearly and openly involved in any potential Zionazi attack, to smithereens, vaporizing it all actually. The infrastructure, pipe-lines, oil-wells, everything, and that is relatively easy to do, the Iranian missiles will rain on auto-pilot until mission accomplished. That and closing the Hormuz-strait of course. In my mind that is the main reason why the US hasn´t done anything yet because it will bring the world economy to a stand-still and only one “country” in the world is insane enough to ever want something like that if necessary: The Zionazi pariah because they are doomed as such anyway. Do the medieval chimpanzee royals in Saudi Arabia really think it´s worth it, IF they survive the onslaught? They are clearly insane but i dont think they possess the level of Zionazi pre-traumatic stress disorder it takes to wish for it…
Mikhas.
@Mikhas:medieval chimpanzee
What a *perfect* description. If that is ok with you, I will adopt it for the future. It’s *perfect*.
that is not primarily some US bases surrounding it but rather bombing Saudi-Arabia
There is some really major US facilities in KSA, so these are lucrative targets too. But yes, the Iranians will have a ball lobbing ballistic and cruise missiles all over the KSA and the other feudal statlets of the Gulf.
And did you see this: http://rt.com/news/joint-gulf-military-troops-625/
They are clearly terrified of Iran, as they should be :-)
Cheers,
The Saker
I think what the Saudi “Prince” is talking about is already happening.
The embassy bombing in Lebanon and the killing of the Hizbollah commander is the kind of confrontation he is talking about. Maybe more attacks are to come.
I feel when he talks about pouring more money he means in asymmetrical ways. They will probably be harder on protesters in Bahrain, fund and incite sectarian groups in Pakistan, fund Jundallah more, and pour money into Azerbaijan. Saudi money will fund Israeli operations. With that kind of money who knows what they are capable of.
Saudis never had and will never have the cahunas/stomach for a war. At least not one in which they are prime targets.
Israel and the Saudis have been true allies. Regimes like Saudi where one faction tries to keep the majority down is the kind of stuff Israel can work with. It’s deeper than just political. Israelis/Jews in the end have a deep down belief in God, in their being chosen. They, here only the Israelis, want other societies to turn away and consider their own beliefs as being meaningless. And the Saudi regime is doing this to the Islamic world. No more shrines, no more flowers, no more colour, just black and white. In the end when you get so Puritan its easy to stop believing. Nothing to hold you, to give you “marefat”.
They like working with the top layer in Saudi Arabia which by now I doubt even believes in God. The rulers remind me of those groups in Algeria that committed so many atrocities that they felt there was no way God exists. But this is going off topic.
The Saudis and Israelis may be planning something in Iran. But I too feel it has to be a false flag operation.
Mindfriedo
@saker
I had a Syrian working for me last year. A refugee, a fixer in Syria, an engineer, and one hell of a salesman.
Anyhow, I pointed out to him that Bashar al Assad reminded me of Michael Corleone. His father Hafez, Don Corleone. His elder brother who was killed was like Sonny. And all his enemies were like the five families with the Saudis being the tattaglias, since they are the pimps in the Middle East.
What I did not understand then, and still don’t now, is balance. For instance when all these Iranian scientist were being killed, there were attacks on Israelis abroad and the attacks ceased. Why have Iran and Syria not responded in kind after the saudis have openly been sending arms, money to the syrian opposition. Maybe it’s to avoid more trouble for the Shia. If Iran arms or incites them in Saudi Arabia they will be slaughtered. Somebody like Hafez would have understood balance.
The Syrian used to tell me that when Hafez was in power, Iran was a card he used to play. But now Syria is a card Iran plays. Which is only partly true. Back then Hafez knew the importance of Iran, now the Iranians know the importance of Syria. They are not letting, or playing, this card go.
mindfriedo
Off topic, but a good Sunday afternoon, food-for-thought read.
May I recommend:
The Late, Great American WASP
The old U.S. ruling class had plenty of problems. But are we really better off with a country run by the self-involved, over-schooled products of modern meritocracy?
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304367204579268301043949952?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories
I think “some elements” in USN will help with the false flag to join Is/KSA alliance after the bombing starts ( like they did in Pearl Harbor and Tonkin)
War is needed by US real rulers (new british empire) before Olympisc ends.
black and white
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/syrian-rebels-have-taken-iconoclasm-to-new-depths-with-shrines-statues-and-even-a-tree-destroyed–but-to-what-end-9021017.html
mindfriedo
@The semi-official love story…
Now, the centuries old secret adulterous liaison between Zion and Islam has “come out of the closet”.
See how the contemporaries of the rise of Islam viewed it. From the Armenian Chronicle of Ghewond (7-8th Century):
‘Once Heraclius’ son [Constantine III, 613-641] had come to rule in his father’s stead, the Lord awakened the spirits of malevolent men so that through them the blood of Christians would be shed in vengeance, because we had sinned before the Lord God. [The Arabs] began to form brigades and mass troops against Constantine’s realm, against Judaea and Asorestan, having for support the command of their law-giver, that sower of darnel, to “Go against the countries and put them under your rule, for the plenty of the world has been given to us for our enjoyment. Eat the meat of the select ones of the countries, and drink the blood of the mighty.” The Jews were their supporters and leaders, having gone to the camp at Madiam and told them: “God promised Abraham that He would deliver up the inhabitants of the world in service [to him]; and we are his heirs and sons of the patriarch. Because of our wickedness, God became disgusted with us and lifted the scepter of kingship from us, subjecting us to the servitude of slavery. But you, too, are children of Abraham and sons of the patriarch. Arise with us and save us from service to the emperor of the Byzantines, and together we shall hold our realm.” [The Arabs] were encouraged further hearing this, and went against Judaea.’ (http://rbedrosian.com/ghew1.htm.)
Cheers,
WizOz
@The Saker
> If *anybody* attacks Iran, the Iranians will immediately conclude, correctly, that at the very least the USA allowed the attack to proceed.
Agree. Still, if KSA and Israel are the ones actually *attacking* Iran, why would Iran encourage the mightiest enemy in the world to join in the attacks, when it only stood by, watching, rather than going for easier, less risky, and more justified targets?
The “false flag” variant, as mentioned by some, might seem more promising from the point of view of KSA and Israel. That way – they might hope – they can make sure they won’t become prime targets of the Iranians. That said, for a “false flag” attack to succeed in drawing in the US, the US would have to be inclined to attack Iran already, which does not seem to be the case. False flags have always been convenient for parties just waiting for a reason to attack. But the US would certainly see through such a maneuver, and it’s not clear they’d let another USS Liberty type incident go unpunished.
I’m not convinced that e.g. Obama got duped by the CW attack false flag. At that point in time, they were just waiting to teach Syria a lesson. The government wasn’t even able to publish a (however blackened) intelligence assessment claiming Assad’s responsibility, but had to resort to a government assessment, i.e. something purely political.
That the attack was averted is a different story, but Obama would have just ignored what is so obviously contradicting common sense: Assad willingly and unnecessarily stepping over the Red Line™. In the case of Syria they “fell for it”, because they wanted to attack, in the case of Iran they won’t, because they aren’t in the mood for an attack on Iran.
Honk
Pentagon deploys bombers near Iran
http://www.voltairenet.org/article181451.html
“On a fundraising trip to California, president Barack Obama defended his policy on Iran before his pro-Israeli friends.
He thereby declared that the interim agreement signed in Geneva would entail measures aimed at maintaining military pressure on Teheran.
At the same time, while visiting the Persian Gulf, US Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel revealed that the Pentagon was spending $ 580 million to beef up its Fifth Fleet in Bahrain.
F-22 planes will be stationed permanently, with the capability of immediately striking Iran, if necessary.”
The title is misleading, the F-22 is not a bomber. It is significant that F-22s will be stationed in Bahrain because these aircraft are the best USA/NATO has for penetrating Iranian airspace and returning still alive, due to their supersonic cruise and “stealth”. I have long thought that the F-22, along with the B2 bomber, would be the vanguard of any serious USA/NATO/Israeli air attack on a decently defended opponent (following the usual cruise missile blitz). These are the aircraft that would lead an air assault on Iran and who would have the important task of neutralising Iranian air defense assets, including both aircraft and ground based detection and SA missile systems, so the older junk, that is the bulk of these western air forces, would then have a chance.
Moving F-22s into the region I think indicates a possible serious American plan to attack Iran, perhaps to help out a planned Israeli-Saudi attack. I think this info brings into question any speculation that Obama is serious about peace now, especially with Iran. That speculation was probably begun in order to take scrutiny off of Israeli/American/EU planning to continue expanding their war crimes in pursuit of global dominance. When it comes to the people who run the west, we’re not dealing with human beings any more, but with varying degrees of deception and depravity in pursuit of naked power and greed.
вот так
@Pentagon deploys bombers…
One might be inclined to give more credence to the perversity of the rulers of the dark side.
A speculation. The Saudis threatened to disrupt the Olympics in Sochi. Is the absence of western leaders a sign that they know something?
WizOz
@WizOz: The Saudis threatened to disrupt the Olympics in Sochi. Is the absence of western leaders a sign that they know something?
I very much doubt it because if they would know something, so would the SVR/FSB. Besides, the Saudis would take a huge risk attacking the Russians directly as Russia can easily strike at the KSA with zero risk for Russia. CENTCOM can do a lot, but not stop a Russian missile strike, for example.
I am concerned about Sochi, of course, simply because the number of possible targets is way bigger than what the security services can protect. So my hope is that these services are keeping a close eye on the potential terrorist to get them even before the latter get anywhere near Sochi.
The Olympics should be okay, but I will breathe better once they are over.
The Saker
@Sochi…
Of course it is an iddle speculation. But the West peddle the idea that Putin pegged his “prestige” on the success of the Olympics and they would be glating if it would be dented somehow.
WizOz
Where would be the ‘Red Line’ drawn by Russia?
Sochi we know, but would Russia allow a full scale attack on Iran?
I cannot imagine a counter attack on Israel proper, but KSA targets and IDF offensive forces I could.
Or would it be just a massive arms sale to Iran?
> If *anybody* attacks Iran, the Iranians will immediately conclude, correctly, that at the very least the USA allowed the attack to proceed.
Agree. Still, if KSA and Israel are the ones actually *attacking* Iran, why would Iran encourage the mightiest enemy in the world to join in the attacks, when it only stood by, watching, rather than going for easier, less risky, and more justified targets?
The “false flag” variant, as mentioned by some, might seem more promising from the point of view of KSA and Israel. That way – they might hope – they can make sure they won’t become prime targets of the Iranians. That said, for a “false flag” attack to succeed in drawing in the US, the US would have to be inclined to attack Iran already, which does not seem to be the case. False flags have always been convenient for parties just waiting for a reason to attack. But the US would certainly see through such a maneuver, and it’s not clear they’d let another USS Liberty type incident go unpunished.
I’m not convinced that e.g. Obama got duped by the CW attack false flag. At that point in time, they were just waiting to teach Syria a lesson. The government wasn’t even able to publish a (however blackened) intelligence assessment claiming Assad’s responsibility, but had to resort to a government assessment, i.e. something purely political.
That the attack was averted is a different story, but Obama would have just ignored what is so obviously contradicting common sense: Assad willingly and unnecessarily stepping over the Red Line™. In the case of Syria they “fell for it”, because they wanted to attack, in the case of Iran they won’t, because they aren’t in the mood for an attack on Iran.
Honk
There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.
The KSA and Israel are losing their ventures which is justice.
It’s possible that an Israeli/KSA coalition could do something incredibly stupid but even the hint of any such stupidity would:
1) Bring a triumvirate of Russia, China and the US (all who are NOT going to put up with this bullshit because of their varied vested interests) down on their heads militarily and economically. How do you say military coup in (KSA) Arabic? How do you say complete isolation in Hebrew?
2)Al Qaida was pissed off (to put it mildly) at KSA for letting the infidel Americans in………. how will they feel about letting rabid Zionists? The boomerang of backing these lunatic Salafis would come back faster than the speed of light.
These are just two of the reasons I don’t believe the Israeli/KSA partners in crime will do anything significant. They’re just pouting because their Syrian false flag flopped. I think the false flag ship has sailed. A good false flag takes a great deal of organization to implement and resources to “give it legs”. A new one involving Iran would be under a microscope from the get go.
The tide has turned and the countries that have the most to fear are Turkey, Jordan, KSA and Israel in that order. Over the next few months they are going to be busy building firebreaks. This squawking may be part of it.
And what about that sort of gulf military block led by the saudis? Is that another step towards war by the medieval kingdom and the zionazis?
And what about the new military gulf union led by the saudis? Is that another step towards war?
Today is Chehlum, the 40th Day after Hussain ibn Ali’s Martyrdom.
People are walking to Karbala in their thousands. A cousin of mine is there today. He says people get upset if you do not accept their hospitality. I was there in 1998. Saddam prevented people from matam or mourning. But when the time of martyrdom of Hussain came, people got up spontaneously all around. They started beating their chest and calling to him.
http://www.manartv.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=126784&cid=23&fromval=1&frid=23&seccatid=24&s1=1
When the Americas invaded Iraq it was after Ashura in 2003. Maybe they timed it so that the Shias were not free of Saddam on that day. But that year they were free of Saddam when Chehlum/Arbaeen came and people thronged Karbala. A BBC reporter was on the rooftops. He translated what the people were chanting “Saddam Saddam where are you, Hussain has won”
False Flag or direct confrontation, the Shias will give a tough fight.
mindfriedo
@Guy Moyssen:And what about the new military gulf union led by the saudis? Is that another step towards war?
I don’t think so, its rather an expression of the fear and frustration of the Gulf monarchs. Although things might have changed, but I remember in the 1990s I had contact with American officers training in and with Saudi forces and they considered them a total joke. Their best force is the national guard, and that one is dedicated to internal security and killing Shias. My sense if that these Arab Gulf armies are like the Georgian military: lavishly equipped and with neatly pressed uniforms, and they fancy themselves US soldiers, except for the minor problem that they are not and by a long long stretch. The Gulf monarchies’ military are full of political appointees, cronyism, corruption and they have zero military tradition (unless you consider the murderous Ikhwan as a military force – I don’t).
The Iranians, in comparison, are a very strong military force whom the Gulf monarchies fear. And so they should.
And if these medieval chimpanzees (perfect term!) think that they can make their own little “Wahabi CENTCOM” – let them try :-)
The Saker
Israel’s air defences are tied into NATO’s European air defence command. They cannot act alone without leaving themselves without control of their own skies.
In any case, Israel and Saudi Arabia do not have the stomach for a war against someone who can effectively strike back. Same goes for the US for that matter.
So, they will all continue to pursue war by covert means.
sunnis have also started joining hezbollah.