Middle East Politics

Turkey and allied militias are completing the conquest of Afrin, Assad is almost there in East Ghouta, and Israeli police have apparently killed a Turkish citizen they claim stabbed someone in Jerusalem.
 
Nikhil said:
This mohammed bin salman is a cancer on earth. He's a despot who is wrecking havoc with all that he's doing.

Click to expand...


Should we be surprised that Saudi would attempt to balance if the Iranians get a nuke ? All the more reason to keep the region nuke free as it will simply start an arms race and lead to (at a minimum) a conventional war.
 
Raoul said:
Should we be surprised that Saudi would attempt to balance if the Iranians get a nuke ? All the more reason to keep the region nuke free as it will simply start an arms race and lead to (at a minimum) a conventional war.
Click to expand...

Should the US allow Saudi to have a nuke? Not the Trump administration, but the US in the long run? Iran having nukes or developing nukes has not destabilised the region but another country, Saudi, getting nukes would be disastrous. Soon Turkey may decide to develop nukes. It's a never ending cycle.
 
Nikhil said:
Should the US allow Saudi to have a nuke? Not the Trump administration, but the US in the long run? Iran having nukes or developing nukes has not destabilised the region but another country, Saudi, getting nukes would be disastrous. Soon Turkey may decide to develop nukes. It's a never ending cycle.
Click to expand...

Saudis dont have the scientific knowledge to make nukes, they'll most likely buy chinese nukes from pakistan. Btw turkey already has nukes stored in its territory. Also Iran having nukes would be more disastrous for pakistan and china as there influence would be reduced in afghanistan and central asia, it would not matter much for India as we are already flanked by two hostile neighbors who have nukes.
 
VidaRed said:
Saudis dont have the scientific knowledge to make nukes, they'll most likely buy chinese nukes from pakistan. Btw turkey already has nukes stored in its territory. Also Iran having nukes would be more disastrous for pakistan and china as there influence would be reduced in afghanistan and central asia, it would not matter much for India as we are already flanked by two hostile neighbors who have nukes.
Click to expand...

The unnerving thing for India is that we are the only country in the world that shares a border with not one but two nuclear armed countries that we have bad relations with, militarily.

But yeah, Saudi will probably get the tech to make nukes the same way North Korea got it - from pakistan. The next few decades are going to either make or break the world. It is scary.
 
Nikhil said:
The unnerving thing for India is that we are the only country in the world that shares a border with not one but two nuclear armed countries that we have bad relations with, militarily.

But yeah, Saudi will probably get the tech to make nukes the same way North Korea got it - from pakistan. The next few decades are going to either make or break the world. It is scary.
Click to expand...

USA gets its panties in a twist if a country half a world away wants to get nukes, imagine what there reaction would be if hypothetically both mexico and canada get nukes and are hostile ?
 
VidaRed said:
USA gets its panties in a twist if a country half a world away wants to get nukes, imagine what there reaction would be if hypothetically both mexico and canada get nukes and are hostile ?
Click to expand...

Yeah they wouldn't like it one bit. Hypothetical situation of course. But in Western countries, countries have so much at stake that they usually work issues out. They may have conflicting opinions when it comes to trade or some other issues but they find a way to work around it and move forward. Trump being the exception of course.

Then you look at regions like South Asia, Africa etc where countries have not been able to form successful multi-nation organisations such as the EU or NATO. Any conflict in the ME would require Western intervention to prevent a massive nuclear war.

It seems like the World is going backwards.
 
Nikhil said:
Should the US allow Saudi to have a nuke? Not the Trump administration, but the US in the long run? Iran having nukes or developing nukes has not destabilised the region but another country, Saudi, getting nukes would be disastrous. Soon Turkey may decide to develop nukes. It's a never ending cycle.
Click to expand...

Iran doesn't have nukes, but rest assured if they somehow got them then the Saudis would immediately balance, and it wont be hard for them to do it.
 
Raoul said:
Pretty good interview with MBS on 60 minutes.





Click to expand...



"What was Saudi Arabia like before 1979?" she asks man born in 1985. His answer is all part of his agenda to blame Iran solely for the supposed change since then.

He's saying many things people want to hear, there's zero reason to place any hope in him yet though.
 
2cents said:
"What was Saudi Arabia like before 1979?" she asks man born in 1985. His answer is all part of his agenda to blame Iran solely for the supposed change since then.

He's saying many things people want to hear, there's zero reason to place any hope in him yet though.
Click to expand...

What specific policy changes would you like to see from him that would inspire hope ?
 
2cents said:
"What was Saudi Arabia like before 1979?" she asks man born in 1985. His answer is all part of his agenda to blame Iran solely for the supposed change since then.

He's saying many things people want to hear, there's zero reason to place any hope in him yet though.
Click to expand...

You can talk about a time before you were born in. It's called history so don't know what's so wrong with them. Also, there is reason to place hope on him as many of the modernization acts have already passed. Dunno if it will continue or if he's any good but there is definitely reason.
 
I think Nukes will stabilize the region. If all you have is a slingshot, you are not afraid to use it but once you and your enemy has Nukes you are way more careful.

Look at Indian and Pakistan. Ever since both countries have had Nukes they haven't had a full fledged war. Tensions are there but I feel like without Nukes they'd be going at each other constantly.
 
Raoul said:
What specific policy changes would you like to see from him that would inspire hope ?
Click to expand...

The number one thing is something that he might not survive trying - breaking the back of the Wahhabi ulama and putting an end to their influence both domestically and over the international Saudi dawah enterprise and the sectarianism and general religious bigotry that accompanies it. I don't have much hope in him because he speaks the language of sectarianism himself and seems to believe that pre-1979 Wahhabism was free of it.

shamans said:
You can talk about a time before you were born in.
Click to expand...

Of course but his answer is deluded - perhaps he actually believes what he's saying but it would have been nice for the journalist to grill him a bit more on it rather than just nodding along as if what he's saying is the end of the matter.
 
Last edited:
2cents said:
The number one thing is something that he might not survive trying - breaking the back of the Wahhabi ulama and putting an end to their influence both domestically and over the international Saudi dawah enterprise and the sectarianism that accompanies it. I don't have much hope in him because he speaks the language of sectarianism himself and seems to believe that pre-1979 Wahhabism was free of it.
Click to expand...

There are fair points, although I doubt that he alone has the gravitas to take on the Ulema right now since he is basically doing his Dad's job that has been outsourced to him while still not King yet. Therefore he has to continue to walk the fine line of dissing Khamenei to assuage the domestic sectarian mob while continuing to gradually disassemble some of the Wahabi polices "the west" deem unpalatable. If he's successful, it won't be something that happens overnight but rather gradually over the course of years.
 
Raoul said:
Iran doesn't have nukes, but rest assured if they somehow got them then the Saudis would immediately balance, and it wont be hard for them to do it.
Click to expand...

I personally am not concerned about Iran getting nukes. In fact, I think Iran should probably have them so that the US doesn't start another war with a decade spanning occupation. They are a non overtly belligerent country. They play the espionage game, but they don't run around invading and conquering neighbors. I'm confident their desire for nukes is defensive and for self preservation. Saudi on the other hand. They are invading their neighbor. They are the single greatest de-stabilizing force in the region, and possibly the planet. People call Assad a crime dynasty. If Assad is a crime dynasty, what in the feck is Saudi Arabia, because drawing any sort of moral equivalency between those two regimes is like drawing moral equivalency between something pretty bad, and something absolutely horrible.
 
Nucks said:
I personally am not concerned about Iran getting nukes. In fact, I think Iran should probably have them so that the US doesn't start another war with a decade spanning occupation. They are a non overtly belligerent country. They play the espionage game, but they don't run around invading and conquering neighbors. I'm confident their desire for nukes is defensive and for self preservation. Saudi on the other hand. They are invading their neighbor. They are the single greatest stabilizing force in the region, and possibly the planet. People call Assad a crime dynasty. If Assad is a crime dynasty, what in the feck is Saudi Arabia, because drawing any sort of moral equivalency between those two regimes is like drawing moral equivalency between something pretty bad, and something absolutely horrible.
Click to expand...

I would have to disagree with Iran and nukes. If they get them, Saudi will as well, and Turkey will immediately pursue them too. So then you are dealing with a non-nuclear middle east (excluding of course Israel) to one where three nations, each with varying degrees of Sectarian disdain for one another, each have nuclear weapons. The better scenario is to disarm the region so that none of the weapons ever come into play or even worse, the technology gets into the wrong hands.
 
Nucks said:
I personally am not concerned about Iran getting nukes. In fact, I think Iran should probably have them so that the US doesn't start another war with a decade spanning occupation. They are a non overtly belligerent country. They play the espionage game, but they don't run around invading and conquering neighbors. I'm confident their desire for nukes is defensive and for self preservation. Saudi on the other hand. They are invading their neighbor. They are the single greatest de-stabilizing force in the region, and possibly the planet. People call Assad a crime dynasty. If Assad is a crime dynasty, what in the feck is Saudi Arabia, because drawing any sort of moral equivalency between those two regimes is like drawing moral equivalency between something pretty bad, and something absolutely horrible.
Click to expand...
Iran have been heavily involved in both Syria and Yemen.

Technically Saudi are not invading Yemen either, they are trying to keep in power someone who is friendly to them. Same way the Russians/Iran are propping up Assad.

Main point is none are entirely innocent, they've all got their hands dirty somewhere in the name of geopolitics.
 
shamans said:
there is reason to place hope on him as many of the modernization acts have already passed
Click to expand...

I don't place much value in the changes that have taken place so far beyond the liberal benefits they might bring for Saudi citizens. They seem to me to be superficial reforms aimed at reversing the course of a PR campaign in the West which has been going extremely bad for the monarchy since at least 9/11.

Raoul said:
Therefore he has to continue to walk the fine line of dissing Khamenei to assuage the domestic sectarian mob
Click to expand...

It's not just criticizing Khamenei - he is on record as describing the 'problem' as Ja'fari Shi'ism, which is just another term for Twelver Shi'ism, the dominant mainstream form of Shi'ism that exists today. If he specifically identified Khomeinism or the ideology of Vilayat-e Faqih as the problem (or one of the problems) then that would be fine and something even many Shi'a would be able to agree with.
 
2cents said:
I don't place much value in the changes that have taken place so far beyond the liberal benefits they might bring for Saudi citizens. They seem to me to be superficial reforms aimed at reversing the course of a PR campaign in the West which has been going extremely bad for the monarchy since at least 9/11.



It's not just criticizing Khamenei - he is on record as describing the 'problem' as Ja'fari Shi'ism, which is just another term for Twelver Shi'ism, the dominant mainstream form of Shi'ism that exists today. If he specifically identified Khomeinism or the ideology of Vilayat-e Faqih as the problem (or one of the problems) then that would be fine and something even many Shi'a would be able to agree with.
Click to expand...

That sounds like something a typical Saudi royal would say since it is in like with the usual policy of being hypercritical of Khomeinism. I would doubt MBS would want to estrange himself from the Ulema this early in the process by coming out with some sort of mavericky "Let's get along with Iran" type policy platform. On the brighter side, it seems that most of Iran and much of Saudi are now full of younger generations who have more progressive views, so there is hope that if MBS is serious about reform, that he may at a later date become more pragmatic, once he is assuaged that being so won't result in him being overthrown by domestic religious fanatics.
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
That sounds like something a typical Saudi royal would say since it is in like with the usual policy of being hypercritical of Khomeinism. I would doubt MBS would want to estrange himself from the Ulema this early in the process by coming out with some sort of mavericky "Let's get along with Iran" type policy platform. On the brighter side, it seems that most of Iran and much of Saudi are now full of younger generations who have more progressive views, so there is hope that if MBS is serious about reform, that he may at a later date become more pragmatic, once he is assuaged that being so won't result in him being overthrown by domestic religious fanatics.
Click to expand...
Religious Scholars in Saudi are pretty much controlled by the Monarchy. Not the other way round.
 
Sultan said:
Religious Scholars in Saudi are pretty much controlled by the Monarchy. Not the other way round.
Click to expand...

I thought the Saud's and Al-ash Shekihs have had a long term power sharing arrangement where one controls the Monarchy and political affairs and the other controls all things religion - with both in a sense, symbiotically preserving the legitimacy of the other. Although it seems the Ulema are losing power in recent years since Abdullah took over.
 
https://lobelog.com/mohammed-bin-salman-brave-reformer-or-reckless-autocrat/
Thousands of civilians caught up in the conflict have died in Saudi airstrikes that have utilized U.S. aircraft and bombs, and a Saudi/UAE led blockade has put millions of Yemenis are risk of famine. In addition, hundreds of thousands of civilians in Yemen are suffering from the worst cholera outbreak in history, sparked in part by the Saudi coalition’s relentless destruction of civilian infrastructure. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) has rightly noted that the Saudi actions in Yemen “look like war crimes.”

MbS was the driving force behind the Saudi intervention, which began in March 2015. These are hardly the actions of a “reformer,” unless by reform one means setting new standards for abusing human rights, killing civilians, and wreaking havoc in a region already awash in conflicts.

MbS’s domestic record is no better. Although his promotion of changes like allowing women to drive and easing up on curbs on public entertainment have drawn praise, they hardly make up for his harsh political crackdown and drive for unquestioned authority. As The New York Times reported earlier this week, his so-called anti-corruption campaign, which involved arresting prominent Saudi business, political, and military leaders without due process, included physical abuse of detainees and seizure of their assets. This unprecedented move against the regime’s powerbrokers was motivated by MbS’s desire to consolidate his power, not any genuine concern with corruption. This point is underscored by his own accumulation of wealth, believed to be in the range of $17 billionand including a $300 million chateau and the purchase of a yacht for the astonishing price of $500 million.

In the meantime, critics of the regime whose “crimes” can involve as little as publishing critical blog posts are languishing in jail, and any moves towards democratizing the kingdom appear to be rapidly receding into the distance.
Click to expand...

https://lobelog.com/saudi-prince-mohammeds-achilles-heel/
The evolution of the US approach to the six-month old UAE-Saudi-led boycott of Qatar suggests a complexity of policy making in Washington that both princes have so far failed to take into account or effectively address.

Al-Monitor Washington correspondent Laura Rozen reported that UAE ambassador Youssef al-Otaiba in June called then-US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Stuart Jones in the middle of the night to give him advance notice of the boycott. “What are you guys doing? This is crazy,” Jones told the ambassador. To which Otaiba responded: “‘Have you spoken to the White House?’”

Despite Trump’s expressed support for the Saudi UAE position involving a refusal to negotiate or lift the boycott unless Qatar accepts demands that would compromise its ability to chart its own course, US policy administered by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense James Mattis’ has pushed for a negotiated resolution – a position far closer to that of Qatar.

Speaking at conference in the UAE, Republican lobbyist Ed Rogers urged Gulf countries to broaden their outreach in Washington from one narrowly focused on Trump’s White House to other branches of government as well Democrats in Congress. “I made the point that lobbying efforts and Washington should not ignore the Democrats in Congress and that they may be coming back in one house or another in 2018,” Rogers told Al-Monitor.
Click to expand...
 
Sultan said:
Religious Scholars in Saudi are pretty much controlled by the Monarchy. Not the other way round.
Click to expand...

I think that's a simplification. They have historically operated on the mutual understanding that each has its own sphere of influence where it gets to set the agenda - the monarchy have traditionally granted the ulama the freedom to define Islam in Saudi Arabia and in the Saudi-sponsored institutions abroad in exchange for the granting of political legitimacy, an arrangement typical of pre-modern dynasties across the Islamic world. For most of Saudi history their agendas have been complimentary rather than antagonistic. If MBS is truly serious and actually intends to reign in the sectarianism and general bigotry of the ulama, then there is a real clash of agendas on the cards.
 
Raoul said:
Been wondering where Mehdi has been hiding out. Not surprised to see where he's resurfaced.

Click to expand...


That's an excellent response to criticism of MbS's record in Yemen. It's so effective I might even call it whataboutery.
 
berbatrick said:
That's an excellent response to criticism of MbS's record in Yemen. It's so effective I might even call it whataboutery.
Click to expand...

I don't consider Mehdi a neutral arbiter on this issue. He is a Shi'a whose pro-Iranian views have plagued his legitimacy for years.
 
2cents said:
The number one thing is something that he might not survive trying - breaking the back of the Wahhabi ulama and putting an end to their influence both domestically and over the international Saudi dawah enterprise and the sectarianism and general religious bigotry that accompanies it. I don't have much hope in him because he speaks the language of sectarianism himself and seems to believe that pre-1979 Wahhabism was free of it.


Of course but his answer is deluded - perhaps he actually believes what he's saying but it would have been nice for the journalist to grill him a bit more on it rather than just nodding along as if what he's saying is the end of the matter.
Click to expand...

I don't know about pre 1979 Wahhabism but Wahhabism as a concept(belief?) is not meant to be what the Saudis have made it. Just wanted to make the point!
 
berbatrick said:
https://theintercept.com/2018/03/19...ed-bin-salman-was-a-crime-against-journalism/
Click to expand...

Yup. Some more questions I would add:

"If Islam in Saudi Arabia was so tolerant before 1979, why did a large number of Muslim Brotherhood activists such as Muhammad Qutb make their home in the Kingdom during the 60s and 70s where they taught a generation of Saudis and others the principles of Salafi-Jihadism? Why did the forces of Ibn Saud destroy dozens of shrines associated with Muhammad and his family and companions after they conquered the Hijaz in the 1920s, and why has this vandalism continued into the present day? Why did the forces of the first Saudi state do the same thing as well as sack Karbala and slaughter its inhabitants over a century before?"
 
2cents said:
I don't place much value in the changes that have taken place so far beyond the liberal benefits they might bring for Saudi citizens. They seem to me to be superficial reforms aimed at reversing the course of a PR campaign in the West which has been going extremely bad for the monarchy since at least 9/11.
Click to expand...


That is a huge benefit. If you're going to wish Saudi overnight stops playing the games they play that wont happen. One step at a time. At least the citizens have some breathing room now with some of the changes.

Things aren't always black and white in politics. This guy can be another evil ruler that has benefits as well.
 
shamans said:
That is a huge benefit. If you're going to wish Saudi overnight stops playing the games they play that wont happen. One step at a time. At least the citizens have some breathing room now with some of the changes.

Things aren't always black and white in politics. This guy can be another evil ruler that has benefits as well.
Click to expand...

Yes I accept this, and I've always argued on this forum against the idea that Saudi Arabia is the only or even primary problem in the region or the source of all evil.

However the only people pushing the 'black and white' agenda are those, like the clueless/gutless interviewer above, who are unquestioningly accepting MBS's claims to be some kind of courageous revolutionary reformer. The history of the region and the Saudi state itself suggests they're going to end up looking extremely foolish; but hey, hopefully me and the other cynics are the foolish ones.
 
Raoul said:
I don't consider Mehdi a neutral arbiter on this issue.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't assume that either. And neither am I (or you) really neutral about this.

I do think this article of his criticising MbS and the interview is fact-based.
 
berbatrick said:
I wouldn't assume that either. And neither am I (or you) really neutral about this.

I do think this article of his criticising MbS and the interview is fact-based.
Click to expand...

I'm neutral as I don't have a dog in the fight. Both sides (Saudi and Iran) have problematic views of the other which need to be adjudicated through dialogue. As mentioned earlier, both nations have massive younger populations who likely don't view things through the prism of paranoia and hatred that older generations might. Both leadership structures are severely constrained by deeply sectarian groups within their own countries. If you interviewed the Iranian President he would likely not have much complimentary to say about the Saudis either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.