If a war starts between Saudi Arabia and Iran, I'm sure that US will fight with Sauidis and they will support them with weapons.
US will not be in the Iranian side at all
Topic: Will Mideast Allies Drag Us Into War? (Read 542 times)
Saudi Arabia is not America's ally. It gives a partnership of convenience and profit to our oil barons and elite families like the Bushes, while it funds terrorist groups around the Middle East and spawns the virulently sick wahabi strain of Islam.
Money talks. It isn´t just the oil, it´s also massive weapons sales to Saudi-Arabia and the M-E war zone in general. The United States has been decreasing its share in that in recent years and Britain and France have moved to compensate. The French armaments industry has been absolutely ballooning and the M-E is by far its most important marketplace. Terror blowbacks from all this weapons profiteering in a war zone? Screw that, they´ll have a brief emotional porn binge and then it´s back to business helping with more death and destruction and even more resulting terrorism.
Those Mideast allies wouldn't dare to make such bold moves without at least some "encouraging silence" from their western allies. I think most western countries don't want a war, they just want to use the arabs and turks as henchman and bargaining chips. Hopefully our "wise leaders" keep the turks and saudis on a short lead and don't let them do anything stupid.
This Wikileaks Cable Explains Why the Death of One Cleric Has the Mideast On Edge
BY HENRY JOHNSON JANUARY 4, 2016 - 2:38 PM
More than seven years before he was beheaded by the Saudi Arabian government, outspoken Shiite cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr tried to persuade American diplomats in Riyadh that he wasn’t the pro-Iranian militant portrayed by Saudi officials seeking to discredit his push for greater rights for the kingdom’s embattled Shiite minority.
According to the cable, Nimr, whose execution Saturday has sparked a growing diplomatic crisis between Tehran and Riyadh, “eagerly attempted to divorce himself from the image of being an Iranian agent.” The cable’s author added that Nimr was also “much more complimentary of the U.S” than he had been in past sermons.
Highlights of the conversation were summed up by a U.S. diplomat in a 2008 embassy cable and later made public by Wikileaks. Foreign Policy has condensed it for space and clarity. Read the cable in its entirety here.
On supporting insurrection:
“When asked…whether his tough talk promoted violence or simply warned of it as a possible repercussion of continued discontent in the Shi’a community, al-Nimr responded that if a conflict were to occur he would ‘side with the people, never with the government.’ He continued by saying that though he will always choose the side of the people, this does not necessarily mean that he will always support all of the people’s actions, for example, violence.”
On the United States:
“Al-Nimr stated that in his view, when compared with the actions of nations such as Britain, the European colonial powers, or the Soviet Union, the ‘imperialism’ of the United States has been considerably more benign, with better treatment of people and more successful independent states.
Al-Nimr also stated that Shi’a Muslims, even more than Sunnis, are natural allies for America as Shi’a thought, as reflected by the Imam Ali, is based on justice and liberty, ideas central to the United States.
In addition to giving his comparison Shi’a and American ideals, al-Nimr showed significant historical knowledge of U.S. foreign policy – for example, speaking positively of the spirit of Middle Eastern initiatives during the Carter administration – and was well-informed regarding the state of the U.S. Presidential campaign.”
On Iran:
“Al-Nimr stated that his fundamental view of foreign powers — including Iran — is that they act out of self-interest, not out of piety or religious commonality. Al-Nimr said he was against the idea that Saudi Shi’a should expect Iranian support based on some idea of sectarian unity that supersedes national politics.
Al-Nimr stated that the Shi’a community had the right to search for foreign assistance in the case of conflict against other Saudis. Al-Nimr did not invoke Iran in detailing where this foreign assistance might come from.”
On the Saudi government:
“Al-Nimr also unflinchingly continued to denounce the Saudi government and its actions. One of the al-Nimr’s overriding messages in this meeting was his view of governments as reactionary institutions.
He did, however, mention that there is a small amount of hope that younger generations, as they continue to study abroad in larger numbers and are exposed to more tolerant societies, will bring more tolerant attitudes back to the Kingdom.”
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/04/this-wikileaks-cable-explains-why-the-death-of-one-cleric-has-the-mideast-on-edge/?utm_content=buffer03e31&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
BY HENRY JOHNSON JANUARY 4, 2016 - 2:38 PM
More than seven years before he was beheaded by the Saudi Arabian government, outspoken Shiite cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr tried to persuade American diplomats in Riyadh that he wasn’t the pro-Iranian militant portrayed by Saudi officials seeking to discredit his push for greater rights for the kingdom’s embattled Shiite minority.
According to the cable, Nimr, whose execution Saturday has sparked a growing diplomatic crisis between Tehran and Riyadh, “eagerly attempted to divorce himself from the image of being an Iranian agent.” The cable’s author added that Nimr was also “much more complimentary of the U.S” than he had been in past sermons.
Highlights of the conversation were summed up by a U.S. diplomat in a 2008 embassy cable and later made public by Wikileaks. Foreign Policy has condensed it for space and clarity. Read the cable in its entirety here.
On supporting insurrection:
“When asked…whether his tough talk promoted violence or simply warned of it as a possible repercussion of continued discontent in the Shi’a community, al-Nimr responded that if a conflict were to occur he would ‘side with the people, never with the government.’ He continued by saying that though he will always choose the side of the people, this does not necessarily mean that he will always support all of the people’s actions, for example, violence.”
On the United States:
“Al-Nimr stated that in his view, when compared with the actions of nations such as Britain, the European colonial powers, or the Soviet Union, the ‘imperialism’ of the United States has been considerably more benign, with better treatment of people and more successful independent states.
Al-Nimr also stated that Shi’a Muslims, even more than Sunnis, are natural allies for America as Shi’a thought, as reflected by the Imam Ali, is based on justice and liberty, ideas central to the United States.
In addition to giving his comparison Shi’a and American ideals, al-Nimr showed significant historical knowledge of U.S. foreign policy – for example, speaking positively of the spirit of Middle Eastern initiatives during the Carter administration – and was well-informed regarding the state of the U.S. Presidential campaign.”
On Iran:
“Al-Nimr stated that his fundamental view of foreign powers — including Iran — is that they act out of self-interest, not out of piety or religious commonality. Al-Nimr said he was against the idea that Saudi Shi’a should expect Iranian support based on some idea of sectarian unity that supersedes national politics.
Al-Nimr stated that the Shi’a community had the right to search for foreign assistance in the case of conflict against other Saudis. Al-Nimr did not invoke Iran in detailing where this foreign assistance might come from.”
On the Saudi government:
“Al-Nimr also unflinchingly continued to denounce the Saudi government and its actions. One of the al-Nimr’s overriding messages in this meeting was his view of governments as reactionary institutions.
He did, however, mention that there is a small amount of hope that younger generations, as they continue to study abroad in larger numbers and are exposed to more tolerant societies, will bring more tolerant attitudes back to the Kingdom.”
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/04/this-wikileaks-cable-explains-why-the-death-of-one-cleric-has-the-mideast-on-edge/?utm_content=buffer03e31&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
For us the Middle East is all about oil and opium. The question should be, "Will they drug us into war?"
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Tuesday - January 5, 2016 at 12:48 am
The New Year’s execution by Saudi Arabia of the Shiite cleric Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr was a deliberate provocation.
Its first purpose: Signal the new ruthlessness and resolve of the Saudi monarchy where the power behind the throne is the octogenarian King Salman’s son, the 30-year-old Defense Minister Mohammed bin Salman.
Second, crystallize, widen and deepen a national-religious divide between Sunni and Shiite, Arab and Persian, Riyadh and Tehran.
Third, rupture the rapprochement between Iran and the United States and abort the Iranian nuclear deal.
The provocation succeeded in its near-term goal. An Iranian mob gutted and burned the Saudi embassy, causing diplomats to flee, and Riyadh to sever diplomatic ties.
From Baghdad to Bahrain, Shiites protested the execution of a cleric who, while a severe critic of Saudi despotism and a champion of Shiite rights, was not convicted of inciting revolution or terror.
In America, the reaction has been divided.
The Wall Street Journal rushed, sword in hand, to the side of the Saudi royals: “The U.S. should make clear to Iran and Russia that it will defend the Kingdom from Iranian attempts to destabilize or invade.”
The Washington Post was disgusted. In an editorial, “A Reckless Regime,” it called the execution risky, ruthless and unjustified.
Yet there is a lesson here.
Like every regime in the Middle East, the Saudis look out for their own national interests first. And their goals here are to first force us to choose between them and Iran, and then to conscript U.S. power on their side in the coming wars of the Middle East.
Thus the Saudis went AWOL from the battle against ISIS and al-Qaida in Iraq and Syria. Yet they persuaded us to help them crush the Houthi rebels in Yemen, though the Houthis never attacked us and would have exterminated al-Qaida.
Now that a Saudi coalition has driven the Houthis back toward their northern basecamp, ISIS and al-Qaida have moved into some of the vacated terrain. What kind of victory is that — for us?
In the economic realm, also, the Saudis are doing us no favors.
While Riyadh is keeping up oil production and steadily bringing down the world price on which Iranian and Russian prosperity hangs, the Saudis are also crippling the U.S. fracking industry they fear.
The Turks, too, look out for number one. The Turkish shoot-down of that Russian fighter-bomber, which may have intruded into its airspace for 17 seconds, was both a case in point and a dangerous and provocative act.
Had Vladimir Putin chosen to respond militarily against Turkey, a NATO ally, his justified retaliation could have produced demands from Ankara for the United States to come to its defense against Russia.
A military clash with our former Cold War adversary, which half a dozen U.S. presidents skillfully avoided, might well have been at hand.
These incidents raise some long-dormant but overdue questions.
What exactly is our vital interest in a permanent military alliance that obligates us to go to war on behalf of an autocratic ally as erratic and rash as Turkey’s Tayyip Recep Erdogan?
Do U.S.-Turkish interests really coincide today?
While Turkey’s half-million-man army could easily seal the Syrian border and keep ISIS fighters from entering or leaving, it has failed to do so. Instead, Turkey is using its army to crush the Kurdish PKK and threaten the Syrian Kurds who are helping us battle ISIS.
In Syria’s civil war — with the army of Bashar Assad battling ISIS and al-Qaida — it is Russia and Iran and even Hezbollah that seem to be more allies of the moment than the Turks, Saudis or Gulf Arabs.
“We have no permanent allies … no permanent enemies … only permanent interests” is a loose translation of the dictum of the 19th century British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston.
Turkey’s shoot-down of a Russian jet and the Saudi execution of a revered Shiite cleric, who threatened no one in prison, should cause the United States to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the alliances and war guarantees we have outstanding, many of them dating back half a century.
Do all, do any, still serve U.S. vital national interests?
In the Middle East, where the crucial Western interest is oil, and every nation — Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Libya — has to sell it to survive — no nation should be able drag us into a war not of our own choosing.
In cases where we share a common enemy, we should follow the wise counsel of the Founding Fathers and entrust our security, if need be, to “temporary,” but not “permanent” or “entangling alliances.”
Moreover, given the myriad religious, national and tribal divisions between the nations of the Middle East, and within many of them, we should continue in the footsteps of our fathers, who kept us out of such wars when they bedeviled the European continent of the 19th century.
This hubristic Saudi blunder should be a wake-up call for us all.
Share Pat's Columns!
http://buchanan.org/blog/will-mideast-allies-drag-us-into-war-124529
Tuesday - January 5, 2016 at 12:48 am
The New Year’s execution by Saudi Arabia of the Shiite cleric Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr was a deliberate provocation.
Its first purpose: Signal the new ruthlessness and resolve of the Saudi monarchy where the power behind the throne is the octogenarian King Salman’s son, the 30-year-old Defense Minister Mohammed bin Salman.
Second, crystallize, widen and deepen a national-religious divide between Sunni and Shiite, Arab and Persian, Riyadh and Tehran.
Third, rupture the rapprochement between Iran and the United States and abort the Iranian nuclear deal.
The provocation succeeded in its near-term goal. An Iranian mob gutted and burned the Saudi embassy, causing diplomats to flee, and Riyadh to sever diplomatic ties.
From Baghdad to Bahrain, Shiites protested the execution of a cleric who, while a severe critic of Saudi despotism and a champion of Shiite rights, was not convicted of inciting revolution or terror.
In America, the reaction has been divided.
The Wall Street Journal rushed, sword in hand, to the side of the Saudi royals: “The U.S. should make clear to Iran and Russia that it will defend the Kingdom from Iranian attempts to destabilize or invade.”
The Washington Post was disgusted. In an editorial, “A Reckless Regime,” it called the execution risky, ruthless and unjustified.
Yet there is a lesson here.
Like every regime in the Middle East, the Saudis look out for their own national interests first. And their goals here are to first force us to choose between them and Iran, and then to conscript U.S. power on their side in the coming wars of the Middle East.
Thus the Saudis went AWOL from the battle against ISIS and al-Qaida in Iraq and Syria. Yet they persuaded us to help them crush the Houthi rebels in Yemen, though the Houthis never attacked us and would have exterminated al-Qaida.
Now that a Saudi coalition has driven the Houthis back toward their northern basecamp, ISIS and al-Qaida have moved into some of the vacated terrain. What kind of victory is that — for us?
In the economic realm, also, the Saudis are doing us no favors.
While Riyadh is keeping up oil production and steadily bringing down the world price on which Iranian and Russian prosperity hangs, the Saudis are also crippling the U.S. fracking industry they fear.
The Turks, too, look out for number one. The Turkish shoot-down of that Russian fighter-bomber, which may have intruded into its airspace for 17 seconds, was both a case in point and a dangerous and provocative act.
Had Vladimir Putin chosen to respond militarily against Turkey, a NATO ally, his justified retaliation could have produced demands from Ankara for the United States to come to its defense against Russia.
A military clash with our former Cold War adversary, which half a dozen U.S. presidents skillfully avoided, might well have been at hand.
These incidents raise some long-dormant but overdue questions.
What exactly is our vital interest in a permanent military alliance that obligates us to go to war on behalf of an autocratic ally as erratic and rash as Turkey’s Tayyip Recep Erdogan?
Do U.S.-Turkish interests really coincide today?
While Turkey’s half-million-man army could easily seal the Syrian border and keep ISIS fighters from entering or leaving, it has failed to do so. Instead, Turkey is using its army to crush the Kurdish PKK and threaten the Syrian Kurds who are helping us battle ISIS.
In Syria’s civil war — with the army of Bashar Assad battling ISIS and al-Qaida — it is Russia and Iran and even Hezbollah that seem to be more allies of the moment than the Turks, Saudis or Gulf Arabs.
“We have no permanent allies … no permanent enemies … only permanent interests” is a loose translation of the dictum of the 19th century British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston.
Turkey’s shoot-down of a Russian jet and the Saudi execution of a revered Shiite cleric, who threatened no one in prison, should cause the United States to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the alliances and war guarantees we have outstanding, many of them dating back half a century.
Do all, do any, still serve U.S. vital national interests?
In the Middle East, where the crucial Western interest is oil, and every nation — Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Libya — has to sell it to survive — no nation should be able drag us into a war not of our own choosing.
In cases where we share a common enemy, we should follow the wise counsel of the Founding Fathers and entrust our security, if need be, to “temporary,” but not “permanent” or “entangling alliances.”
Moreover, given the myriad religious, national and tribal divisions between the nations of the Middle East, and within many of them, we should continue in the footsteps of our fathers, who kept us out of such wars when they bedeviled the European continent of the 19th century.
This hubristic Saudi blunder should be a wake-up call for us all.
Share Pat's Columns!
http://buchanan.org/blog/will-mideast-allies-drag-us-into-war-124529
Jump to: