Posted on 10/23/2016 5:26:23 PM PDT by RC one
Much has been written about the cold war between Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Though this deadly strategic competition has not caused the sweeping disorder in which the Middle East finds itself, it has widened and deepened it.
Whether in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Lebanon or elsewhere, the feud between Riyadh and Tehran has heightened societal divides and inflamed sectarian tensions, harming any efforts to defeat the Islamic State militant group (ISIS), end the civil war in Syria, stabilize Iraq, stop the fighting in Yemen, and solve the political crisis in Lebanon.
While both countries have always preferred to do battle by proxy—because they have more to lose than gain from a direct fight—relations have reached a boiling point, raising the possibility, for the first time in the history of their antagonistic relationship, of the cold war turning hot. This has less to do with the intensifying vitriol the Saudi and Iranian leaderships have hurled at one another recently (although that is surely of concern) and more with objective trends that go beyond sudden emotional bursts.
Indeed, five strategic trends help explain why escalation potentially leading to direct Iranian-Saudi confrontation is more likely now than ever before.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
Good let them destroy each other.
That’s one way to look at it.
I really see no particular reason to prefer Sunni over Shia.
Really, when you get down to brass tacks, Saudi Arabia is probably only second to North Korea when it comes to the absolute absence of individual freedom.
Iran sucks, make no mistake. But at least they have some Christian and Jewish churches. The Saudis don’t.
A woman can drive a car in Iran, but not in Saud Arabia.
The Iranians can at least vote for their leader. Yes, the choices suck, but in Saudi Arabia its a pure feudal hereditary monarchy. They are both equal in terrorism, though the Saudi Sunni branch is probably worse.
So I couldn’t give a tinkers damn which one prevails. But I always laugh at the Saudis being described as an ‘ally’.
Works for me.
I really think it all comes down to our 40+ year financial arrangement with them. they (and OPEC) trade their oil for dollars and nothing else and then recycle those dollars back into our economy through weapon sales and sovereign wealth fund investments. This makes the dollar the de facto global reserve currency and it allows us to distribute the consequences (inflation) of our easy money policy across the entire globe. In other words, it forces people to hold dollars and allows us to indirectly tax them for doing it by printing more dollars. So calling them a tool is probably more accurate than calling them an ally.
Interestingly, Iran has a thriving Jewish community in their Southern region. I admit, Iran is a lot easier to deal with than Saudi Arabia, although I think for the sake of pragmatism, I am certain that both should be cultivated. An Iran/Saudi Arabia war will only destabilize the region forward and how that would benefit the US, I do not know.
It creates leverage over Saudi Arabia. they will need our weapons and our support.
The U.S. actually has no ally in Saudi Arabia today. Only a remnant of what has been due to self interest.
But the U.S. must have ‘ muslim allies’ in the M.E. Jordan is not strong enough, and Egypt is on the cusp, but unstable. The rest in that region are only business-centers, like the Gulf states, or are pawns.
Things such as “women driving in Iran, non muslim religions having and being able to worship in Iran” are secondary considerations - anyway, they didn’t happen because of the U.S.
Examples: the late Shah’s father Reza Shah, in the 1930s, mandated that women remove their Islamic veil in public. His daughters and wife set public examples. Can you imagine MSM and social media today having a field day on this alone, calling him names.. then there was women voting in Iran, a right they got in 1963. Switzerland gave women the right to vote in 1971!
I’ve issues with the U.S. bringing sanctions on Iran, since the mullahs’ regime, and to begin with helping to remove the Shah. Sanctions are often a last resort when one doesn’t want to topple a regime but wants to keep a country weak.
And, the U.S. partly helped topple the Shah because the Saudis & co. felt threatened by him at the time. He was perceived to be getting too big for his shoes. Democracy nonsense is was simply nonsense.
Russia has seriously increased its global market share of petroleum sales and is widening it’s influence over the middle east such that it will have even more sway over the petroleum market. Putin has made it clear that he wishes to conduct petroleum trading in non-dollars and has in fact done so. We can’t have that. So, in the middle east, we are defending dollar hegemony and flirting with WW3 over it.
Can we hope for massive casualties on both sides?
The Saudis are building a wall. In sand.
I think they’re serious.
Yeah, that’s precisely reason U.S. needs “muslim allies” of the Petroleum kind, first and foremost. When it wasn’t Russia, then it was USSR.
Don’t misunderstand, I don’t think Russians are any less self-interested today as they were when USSR.
But the U.S. chose the wrong ally with SA, and today, the Russians try to align themselves with the Mullahs in Iran, whenever they can.
Wall Street Daily
Published Mon, May 30, 2016-Tim Maverick, Senior Correspondent
There are, perhaps, fewer more important– or more delicate – relationships between countries than the one between the United States and Saudi Arabia.
The very reason the U.S. dollar is the world’s reserve currency dates back to a deal struck in 1971 between Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and the Saudis, during which the petrodollar was brought into existence.
The U.S. promised to always protect the House of Saud – militarily. In exchange, the Saudis would only accept dollars for their oil. Under Saudi pressure, all of OPEC soon followed suit.
This meant every nation on the planet needed dollars if they wanted oil.
Currently, however, this crucial relationship is arguably at its least stable since the birth of the petrodollar.
This discontent was blatantly obvious during President Obama’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia.
Despite tradition dictating that government leaders show their respect for visiting foreign diplomats – with the U.S. President being the most revered in the world – Obama was not greeted at the airport by Saudi Arabia’s King Salman.
I have no problems with them getting into it.... as long as we don’t get involved. I suggest they use gas or bio weapons on each other. War would be over quicker.
” Obama was not greeted at the airport by Saudi Arabia’s King Salman.”
The Saudi what’s his name King may not like 0 but he likes military equipments and 0 likes payment for them. It’s a business deal, obviously.
Indeed, would like to lock both in a cage and have them go at it.
The rest of the world would benefit.
Russia and Saudi Arabia - which traditionally buys its military hardware from the US – have had a massive arms contract frozen since 2008. Back then, the sides agreed that Moscow would supply a huge assortment of equipment, including 150 T-90 tanks and more than 150 attack helicopters, to the Gulf state.
RT-Published: 8 Aug, 2013
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.