advanced search
Contact Us tayyar.org
 
The Orange Room - forum.tayyar.org
 



Notices
Regional and International Politics Discuss anything related to Regional and International politics, from Arab-Israeli Conflict to US Presidency Elections

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  (#1 (permalink)) Old
Registered Member
 
Observer's Avatar
 
Offline
Posts: 6,062
Thanks: 10
Thanked 460 Times in 296 Posts
Last Online: 1 Week Ago
Join Date: Fri Apr 2005
View Observer's Photo Album
Default Growing rift between KSA and US - 28th July 2007

More than 40% of the suicide bomber come from KSA and KSA is not doing anything to stop it. But all the pressure on Syria.

-----------------------------------

First time administration has made concern public
· Claims royal family is financing Sunni groups

Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Saturday July 28, 2007
The Guardian


The extent of the deterioration in US-Saudi relations was exposed for the first time yesterday when Washington accused Riyadh of working to undermine the Iraqi government.
The Bush administration warned Saudi Arabia, until this year one of its closest allies, to stop undermining the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.

The US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates, are scheduled to visit Jeddah next week.

Reflecting the deteriorating relationship, the US made public claims that the Saudis have been distributing fake documents lying about Mr Maliki.

The Bush administration, as well as the British government, is telling the Saudis, so far without success, that establishing a stable government in Iraq is in their interest and that they stand to suffer if it collapses.
Relations have been strained since King Abdullah unexpectedly criticised the US, describing the Iraq invasion as "an illegal foreign occupation".

That was the first sign of a rift between the two, who have enjoyed a solid relationship for decades, based on Saudi's vast oil reserves.

At a briefing, the state department spokesman, Sean McCormack, did not refer directly to US frustration with Saudi, beyond saying that Ms Rice and Mr Gates, on their trip to the region, "will be wanting more active, positive support for Iraq and the Iraqi people".

The British government, which retains a close relationship with the Saudis, shares many of the US's concerns about Riyadh's role in Iraq but, unlike Washington, is unwilling to go public.

A Foreign Office spokesman said yesterday: "We have always encouraged the Saudis to participate in the political process in Iraq. Saudi Arabia has a crucial role to play and the Saudis recognise the success of the whole project for the region's stability."

The US claims the Saudi royal family is offering financial support to coreligionist Sunni groups in Iraq opposed to Mr Maliki's Shia-led government.

In a graphic example of the tension, Zalmay Khalilzad, until recently the US ambassador to Baghdad, protested to the Saudis over fake documents distributed in Baghdad which claimed Mr Maliki was an Iranian agent and had tipped off the radical Shia cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr, about a US crackdown on his Madhi army militia.

Mr Khalilzad, who is now US ambassador to the UN, wrote in the New York Times last week: "Several of Iraq's neighbours - not only Syria and Iran but also some friends of the United States - are pursuing destabilising policies."

The Bush administration is also expressing its unhappiness with the Saudis for failing to stem the flow of Saudi jihadists across its border to fight in Iraq, often as suicide bombers. The US estimates that about 40% of the 60 to 80 foreign fighters entering Iraq each month are from Saudi Arabia.

The administration, like Britain, is still dependent on oil from Saudi and until now has been reluctant to go public about the increasing differences with the kingdom. Other causes of tension include Saudi support for Hamas in Gaza and lack of support for a US Israel-Palestinian peace plan.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  (#2 (permalink)) Old
Orange Room Supporter
 
taifoon's Avatar
 
Offline
Posts: 6,219
Thanks: 574
Thanked 635 Times in 369 Posts
Last Online: 22nd May 2009
Join Date: Fri Mar 2005
View taifoon's Photo Album
Default 28th July 2007

The problem for the saudis is the following:
By design of birth, they are wahhabi, they are sunni, they are arabs, they are rich, they have appointed themselves as the protectors of all sunni arabs against the persian shia and actually against all 'infidels', AND for the sake of surviving against their internal enemies, they have cornered themselves by vowing to play on the OUTSIDE arena what their even more fanatic wahhabi saudi elements, the Ben Laden Scholars, preaches. So, in order for them to survive against a fierce anti-Al saud, anti-western, and much more wahhabi-salafi fanatic internal enemy, they chose to play his same game, but on foreign lands, like in Iraq, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria etc... Oussit mouzeyadet: The more fanatic they foreignly play, the more secured domestically, according to their fearful calculations.

I understand the americans dilemma, having to choose between the plague and colera, they opted for colera. The question however is: For how long will both be able to maintain the current equilibrium?
Reply With Quote
  (#3 (permalink)) Old
Registered Member
 
Observer's Avatar
 
Offline
Posts: 6,062
Thanks: 10
Thanked 460 Times in 296 Posts
Last Online: 1 Week Ago
Join Date: Fri Apr 2005
View Observer's Photo Album
Default 28th July 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by taifoon View Post

I understand the americans dilemma, having to choose between the plague and colera, they opted for colera. The question however is: For how long will both be able to maintain the current equilibrium?
hopefully somebody will wake up before another 9-11.
Reply With Quote
  (#4 (permalink)) Old
Orange Room Supporter
 
Abou Sandal's Avatar
 
Online
Posts: 9,893
Thanks: 1,458
Thanked 2,398 Times in 1,496 Posts
Last Online: 1 Minute Ago
Join Date: Mon Jun 2007
View Abou Sandal's Photo Album
Default 28th July 2007

Bush administration & friends and King of Saudi Arabia & servants......

are the two faces of the same coin.....

I doubt any progress could be made unless those two administration are brought down to justice....

And that's not really on the horizon...
Reply With Quote
  (#5 (permalink)) Old
Registered Member
 
Positive Balance's Avatar
 
Online
Posts: 435
Thanks: 128
Thanked 109 Times in 49 Posts
Last Online: 1 Hour Ago
Join Date: Mon Nov 2006
View Positive Balance's Photo Album
Default 28th July 2007

July 28, 2007
U.S. Set to Offer Huge Arms Deal to Saudi Arabia
By DAVID S. CLOUD

WASHINGTON, July 27 — The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to eventually total $20 billion at a time when some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role in Iraq.

The proposed package of advanced weaponry for Saudi Arabia, which includes advanced satellite-guided bombs, upgrades to its fighters and new naval vessels, has made Israel and some of its supporters in Congress nervous. Senior officials who described the package on Friday said they believed that the administration had resolved those concerns, in part by promising Israel $30.4 billion in military aid over the next decade, a significant increase over what Israel has received in the past 10 years.

But administration officials remained concerned that the size of the package and the advanced weaponry it contains, as well as broader concerns about Saudi Arabia’s role in Iraq, could prompt Saudi critics in Congress to oppose the package when Congress is formally notified about the deal this fall.

In talks about the package, the administration has not sought specific assurances from Saudi Arabia that it would be more supportive of the American effort in Iraq as a condition of receiving the arms package, the officials said.

The officials said the plan to bolster the militaries of Persian Gulf countries is part of an American strategy to contain the growing power of Iran in the region and to demonstrate that, no matter what happens in Iraq, Washington remains committed to its longtime Arab allies. Officials from the State Department and the Pentagon agreed to outline the terms of the deal after some details emerged from closed briefings this week on Capitol Hill.

The officials said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who are to make a joint visit to Saudi Arabia next week, still intended to use the trip to press the Saudis to do more to help Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government.

“The role of the Sunni Arab neighbors is to send a positive, affirmative message to moderates in Iraq in government that the neighbors are with you,” a senior State Department official told reporters in a conference call on Friday. More specifically, the official said, the United States wants the gulf states to make clear to Sunnis engaged in violence in Iraq that such actions are “killing your future.”

In addition to promising an increase in American military aid to Israel, the Pentagon is seeking to ease Israel’s concerns over the proposed weapons sales to Saudi Arabia by asking the Saudis to accept restrictions on the range, size and location of the satellite-guided bombs, including a commitment not to store the weapons at air bases close to Israeli territory, the officials said.

The package and the possible steps to allay Israel’s concerns were described to Congress this week, in an effort by the administration to test the reaction on Capitol Hill before entering into final negotiations on the package with Saudi officials. The Saudis had requested that Congress be told about the planned sale, the officials said, in an effort to avoid the kind of bruising fight on Capitol Hill that occurred in the 1980s over proposed arms sales to the kingdom.

In his visit with King Abdullah and other Saudi officials next week, Mr. Gates plans to describe “what the administration is willing to go forward with” in the arms package and “what we would recommend to the Hill and others,” according to a senior Pentagon official, who conducted a background briefing on the upcoming trip with reporters on Friday.

The official added that Mr. Gates would also reassure the Saudis that “regardless of what happens in the near term in Iraq that our commitment in the region remains firm, remains steadfast and that, in fact, we are looking to enhance and develop it.”

The $20 billion price tag on the package is more than double what officials originally estimated when details became public this spring. Even the higher figure is a rough estimate that could fluctuate depending on the final package, which would be carried out over a number of years, officials said.

Worried about the impression that the United States was starting an arms race in the region, State and Defense Department officials stressed that the arms deal was being proposed largely in response to improvements in Iran’s military capabilities and to counter the threat posed by its nuclear program, which the Bush administration contends is aimed at building nuclear weapons.

Along with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are likely to receive equipment and weaponry from the arms sales under consideration, officials said. In general, the United States is interested in upgrading the countries’ air and missile defense systems, improving their navies and making modest improvements in their air forces, administration officials said, though not all the packages would be the same.

Ms. Rice is expected to announce Monday that the administration will open formal discussions with each country about the proposed packages, in hopes of reaching agreements by the fall.

Along with the announcement of formal talks with Persian Gulf allies on the arms package, Ms. Rice is planning to outline the new agreement to provide military aid to Israel, as well as a similar accord with Egypt.

The $30.4 billion being promised to Israel is $9.1 billion more than Israel has received over the past decade, an increase of nearly 43 percent.

A senior administration official said the sizable increase was a result of Israel’s need to replace equipment expended in its war against Hezbollah in Lebanon last summer, as well as to maintain its advantage in advanced weaponry as other countries in the region modernize their forces.

In defending the proposed sale to Saudi Arabia and other gulf states, the officials noted that the Saudis and several of the other countries were in talks with suppliers other than the United States. If the packages offered to them by the United States are blocked or come with too many conditions, the officials said, the Persian Gulf countries could turn elsewhere for similar equipment, reducing American influence in the region.

The United States has made few, if any, sales of satellite-guided munitions to Arab countries in the past, though Israel has received them since the mid-1990s as part of a United States policy of ensuring that Israel has a military edge over its regional rivals.

Israeli officials have made specific requests aimed at eliminating concerns that satellite-guided bombs sold to the Saudis could be used against its territory, administration officials said.

Their major concern is not a full-scale Saudi attack, but the possibility that a rogue pilot armed with one of the bombs could attack on his own or that the Saudi government could one day be overthrown and the weapons could fall into the hands of a more radical regime, officials said.

Source: New York Times, 28 July

---

Some comments:

How ironic: they are trying to use Saudi Arabia to bolster the moderates... Also, what an example the US is setting to moderates in the region, by making this deal with the Saudis and increasing military aid to Egypt. Is the message to all would-be moderates: lick our heels, do as we say, do whatever you want to your people, enrich yourselves as much as you want at your country's expense, but be willing to appear in X amount of photo-ops with G.W. every year, and we'll give you whatever you want?

Is the realization starting to seep in as to how big of a mess Iraq is in, and how much bigger it is liable to get?

And on all these Arab countries getting aid, I was missing one country in that list... Why isn't the Lebanese army getting some of that aid??? I mean, if they really want to 'help' those in Lebanon who want a strong, stable, unified country in which the monopoly on armed force is held only by the official authorities (i.e. if they want HA disarmed), why not aid our army??? Our army that has lost over 100 martyrs fighting Al Qaida gets nothing, whereas the country from where many recruits and (more importantly) funds are coming is getting a huge arms deal???
Reply With Quote
  (#6 (permalink)) Old
Registered Member
 
Positive Balance's Avatar
 
Online
Posts: 435
Thanks: 128
Thanked 109 Times in 49 Posts
Last Online: 1 Hour Ago
Join Date: Mon Nov 2006
View Positive Balance's Photo Album
Default 28th July 2007

Oh, and a question to Observer: so the US is evil, and so are the evil Saudi Wahabis... What, however, if US-Saudi relations do actually deteriorate. Is there a lesser evil that we should tentatively support? Should Syria be treated with full respect and absolved of its mistakes because Saudi is worse? Saudi Arabia is a dilemma, a paradox, and a Pandora's Box. How to convince it to change its ways without making things worse and losing control entirely? Finally, can Lebanon afford to reject relations with countries for having dirty foreign policy agendas? Would that not mean that all the traditional power-brokers and foreign allies that all the parties in Lebanon are currently in league with (to varying degrees) directly or indirectly should be shunned?
Reply With Quote
  (#7 (permalink)) Old
Registered Member
 
mehdi soldier's Avatar
 
Offline
Posts: 2,251
Thanks: 98
Thanked 193 Times in 130 Posts
Last Online: 10th May 2009
Join Date: Fri Sep 2005
View mehdi soldier's Photo Album
Default 28th July 2007

the saudis know they are in a real mess.they are simply afraid of the reality the future will unveil.saudi oil is in the eastern part of the kingdom where the majority of its 20% shia population live.they are oppressing those citizens of theirs simply because they are not wahhabi and dont follow the hanbali school of thought.they also oppress other sunnis like the hanafis and malikis who dont follow the hanbali school.they know what the future holds.they are openly supporting terrorists to distabilize iraq and make it a terrorist kingdom where the shia wil not have the space to breath.

if the usa truly want to get away from the mess in iraq,they need to close the saudi,kuwaiti and jordanian borders.i dont see iran and syria as distabilizing factors.whether they like it or not,iran is a victor in iraq.no matter what saudi do,iraq's population is majority shia and are now free from saddam's tyranny.iran is ready to stand by the shia and see them through under fire or rain.there will be no soultion to iraq if its majority of people are oppressed as saudi wishes.so why not let there be democracy,and peace and let the iraqis freely govern themselves?saudi arabia doesnt want that.

if the usa yields to the saudi plan,plan then the shia will start their own mess and that would make their exit from iraq harder.and that would be a lost game for the usa.
Reply With Quote
  (#8 (permalink)) Old
Registered Member
 
Observer's Avatar
 
Offline
Posts: 6,062
Thanks: 10
Thanked 460 Times in 296 Posts
Last Online: 1 Week Ago
Join Date: Fri Apr 2005
View Observer's Photo Album
Default 28th July 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by Positive Balance View Post
Oh, and a question to Observer: so the US is evil, and so are the evil Saudi Wahabis... What, however, if US-Saudi relations do actually deteriorate. Is there a lesser evil that we should tentatively support? Should Syria be treated with full respect and absolved of its mistakes because Saudi is worse? Saudi Arabia is a dilemma, a paradox, and a Pandora's Box. How to convince it to change its ways without making things worse and losing control entirely? Finally, can Lebanon afford to reject relations with countries for having dirty foreign policy agendas? Would that not mean that all the traditional power-brokers and foreign allies that all the parties in Lebanon are currently in league with (to varying degrees) directly or indirectly should be shunned?

Ok. We must bring down the baathi regime of Syria. Are you happy now? I think this will answer all your paranoid questions.
Reply With Quote
  (#9 (permalink)) Old
Registered Member
 
Positive Balance's Avatar
 
Online
Posts: 435
Thanks: 128
Thanked 109 Times in 49 Posts
Last Online: 1 Hour Ago
Join Date: Mon Nov 2006
View Positive Balance's Photo Album
Default 28th July 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer View Post
Ok. We must bring down the baathi regime of Syria. Are you happy now? I think this will answer all your paranoid questions.
If anyone here is paranoid it is you. I never said or even implied that the Syrian regime must be brought down. You didn't answer my question though. So I'll rephrase. What will happen to your view vis-a-vis the US if their stance towards Saudi Arabia really does deteriorate because of the terrorism coming out from there? Plus, if the reports that you referred to in the initial post of this thread are true, how does this work with the theory that the US is a prime sponsor of religiously fundamentalist terrorists? Does it not rather possibly indicate that elements within even the current US administration are opposed to religious extremism, and that they are now rethinking whether a strategic convergence of goals with the Saudis is worth overlooking the ideological differences? Realistically, how should we treat Saudi Arabia in foreign relations terms? Can we expect ourselves to be able to bring about change there, and is positive change a viable and attainable goal, and if not in the short term, how should our relations be with Saudi until that time? Now, it is obvious that to you Saudi Arabia is the most dangerous state in the region because of religious fanaticism sanctioned by the regime, but I feel that your single-minded focus on Saudi Arabia leads you to ignore the 'lesser evils' of whom we also have many. Your reply to me makes that evident: I ask you some questions, to which your response is to chastise me for supposedly wanting to bring down the Syrian regime rather than treating my questions to you with even a bare minimum of respect... I suspect that you misrepresented me intentionally so you would not have to actually look at what I asked.
Reply With Quote
  (#10 (permalink)) Old
Registered Member
 
Observer's Avatar
 
Offline
Posts: 6,062
Thanks: 10
Thanked 460 Times in 296 Posts
Last Online: 1 Week Ago
Join Date: Fri Apr 2005
View Observer's Photo Album
Default 28th July 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by Positive Balance View Post
If anyone here is paranoid it is you. I never said or even implied that the Syrian regime must be brought down. You didn't answer my question though. So I'll rephrase. What will happen to your view vis-a-vis the US if their stance towards Saudi Arabia really does deteriorate because of the terrorism coming out from there? Plus, if the reports that you referred to in the initial post of this thread are true, how does this work with the theory that the US is a prime sponsor of religiously fundamentalist terrorists? Does it not rather possibly indicate that elements within even the current US administration are opposed to religious extremism, and that they are now rethinking whether a strategic convergence of goals with the Saudis is worth overlooking the ideological differences? Realistically, how should we treat Saudi Arabia in foreign relations terms? Can we expect ourselves to be able to bring about change there, and is positive change a viable and attainable goal, and if not in the short term, how should our relations be with Saudi until that time? Now, it is obvious that to you Saudi Arabia is the most dangerous state in the region because of religious fanaticism sanctioned by the regime, but I feel that your single-minded focus on Saudi Arabia leads you to ignore the 'lesser evils' of whom we also have many. Your reply to me makes that evident: I ask you some questions, to which your response is to chastise me for supposedly wanting to bring down the Syrian regime rather than treating my questions to you with even a bare minimum of respect...
I am not here on trial nor are you an intelliegence agent subjucating me into an interrogation. Those questions have to be asked to the hypocrites among politicians, including Jumblat and Hariri where both would not have been anything without the support of the syrian baathi regime. As for me, US policies of supporting Israel its ruthless vicious policies toward the innocent palestinains where this state was built on the skulls of those innocent this policy will always make me react the way I am reacting now against the US foreign policies. Add to it the illegal occupation of Iraq and the desctruction and the miseries it brought to Iraq and I will not change my opinion about the US foreign policies.

Our relationship with saudis should not be based on money and subservience to their policies and wahhabism. 80% of mosques in US are supported by the KSA. Only those preachers who are certified by ISNA that is mostly on the payroll of KSA can teach in the US army, jails and be experts in courts where the opinion of an Islamic preacher is needed and so on... In europe it is worse. Everywhere else KSA put people on its payroll. Now we have the tentacles of the wahhabi all over our lives and whenever a fanatic execute an attack muslims get blamed that they are not doing enough to stem terrorists and fanatics while the US and the west not only is not doing anything but fueling the rage among muslims and looking the other way when it comes to drying the pool of recruits and stopping the spread of fanaticism.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Orange Room - forum.tayyar.org The Orange Room Main Forums Regional and International Politics


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Forums Directory