Saudi Arabia: For those who don't understand why todays news was important.

[Singular73]

Looks like this thing has spiraled out of control. Lets take a look at the complete picture.

1) November 2006, Saudi's summon Cheney (ps, love how noone ever disputes the term "summon", even on the right), having caught wind of the escalation that was about to occur, weeks before the American public did. As there is basically state-sponsored genocide of Sunnis happening in Iraq right now, with American help, the Saudis understand that the "stability" of Iraq means selling Iraq to Iran, and they certainly cannot allow this. Hence, they tell Cheney the following:

a) Unless you stop the Sunni genocide in Iraq, we will be forced to send weapons, money, supplies to the Sunni side of this conflict. In hopes of victory? Of course not. In hopes of keeping Iraq in chaos, at best, and destabalizing the current government (best case scenario for SA), fighting a proxy-war against Iran.

Meanwhile, Nawaf Obaid, a Saudi Ambassador (or something), writes an Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post,demanding the Americans stay even-handed, then promptly gets "fired". Yeah right. Wasn't staged at all. Was a complete Suprise!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/28/AR2006112801277.html


b) To achieve this goal, the Saudis will flood the markets with oil, by increasing production, and artificially lowering prices (cutting them in half, as stated). The Saudis can afford this. The Iranians can't. Which is the point.

So what happens today?

http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/16/markets/bc.markets.oil.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

Which to me, means that the Saudis don't believe Bush's escalation will work, SPECIFICALLY because Maliki doesn't want it to.

So how do we keep the Saudis happy? Well, we attack Iran, keeping the Israeli's happy, as well as the Israeli lobby. 2 birds with one stone.

Pure folly. We are calling both sides of the coin.

When it lands, all hell will break loose.

[havocmom]

1. Big Oil's puppets in D.C. seem to forget about the bear and the dragon

Gonna get messy.

[illinoisprogressive]

2. I tend to believe you are right on the money here.

[lovuian]

3. Iran has met with the Saudis and the Vatican

Noone knows what was delivered in those letters

but those countries

But the Saudis are very naive if they don't think Iran will disrupt their oil output
when it is necessary... I really don't look forward to WWIII

it majorly sucks having Ding & Dong at the helm

[Singular73]

5. In my heart of hearts

I may concede that Iran needs to be dealt with and severly.

But not by these guys.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. "Iran needs to be dealt with and severly"?

For exactly what do they need to be dealt with, by whom, and what do you mean by severely?

[raccoon]

32. You never did answer Warren. What do you mean,

"Iran needs to be dealt with and severly (sic)."

[leesa]

33. For what? Exactly what have they done?

[FogerRox]

49. Yeah really

"Iran needs to be dealt with and severly"?
For exactly what do they need to be dealt with, by whom, and what do you mean by severely?

When the whole planet was ready to be blown up in a war between the US & the USSR, we ended up talking.

Talk like that in the early 1960's would have resulted in the destruction of the Earth. Thank God someone like JFK had the understanding of what needed doing in the Cuban Missile crisis.

The only way we can stop the civilian Iranian nuke program is to nuke the whole damn country. That would garentee a lot of folks would want revenge on the US. Creating hatred like that is stupid, shortsighted, its cutting off one nose to spite ones face, with napalm.

Back in the 1960's there were jerks who thought we should nuke the USSR, because we could win. thanks heaven the assholes were kept locked in the basement.

[scarletwoman]

53. Bullshit.

I think you're looking at this from the perspective of something much lower than your "heart of hearts".

I may concede that Iran needs to be dealt with and severly.

And what might you concede for the U.S., who, UNLIKE IRAN, has actually invaded a sovereign country, overthrew its government and continues to threaten to do the same to other countries?

sw

[Singular73]

4. I was watching Hardball and Scarborough tonight...

And I'm wondering why noone talks about this.

Either they are prohibited from this type of obvious "speculation", or they just don't get it.

There doesn't seem to be enough real discussion of what is *really* happening here, and why.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

6. Question??What Can The Dems Do?Or The Repugs For That Matter?

:cry: The troops are caught in the middle. Trapped in the green zone with no way out if this occurs. Our worst nightmare!:nuke: :kick:

[Alcibiades]

7. Continued chaos in Iraq

serves the House of Saud quite well, so long as their police are able to keep the clamps on inside Arabia.

Maliki has little to do with the "success" of the Iraqification plan. I think that, if he was able to put pressure on Sadr or somehow bring the Shiah side of the civil war to accept some kind of deal, it would make no difference anyhow, as it would amount to a unilateral cease fire, and the Sunnis have no incentive at all to cooperate anyway. Indeed, the hanging of Saddam and Co. may give a major shot in the arm to the Sunni insurgency.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

9. This Man Is a Hero!! Why Didn't Dems Listen ! Do they Think It Is a Game?

November 19, 2005 Washington Post: even many Democrats think Murtha's immediate withdrawal plan is impractical, it struck a chord in a party where frustration with the war and the Bush administration's open-ended commitment is mounting fast. Murtha galvanized the debate as few others could have. He is a 33-year House veteran and former Marine colonel who received medals for his wounds and valor in Vietnam, and he has traditionally been a leading Democratic hawk and advocate of military spending.

Murtha's resolution included language the Republicans wanted to avoid, such as "the American people have not been shown clear, measurable progress" toward stability in Iraq. It also said troops should be withdrawn "at the earliest practicable date," although Murtha said in statements and interviews Thursday that the drawdown should begin now.

House Rejects Iraq Pullout After GOP Forces a Vote
Democrats Enraged By Personal Attack http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802896.html

[roamer65]

8. Turkey will not stand idly by either...

The Kurds are not going to be allowed an independent Kurdistan, if Turkey has any say about it. Watch the movie "Kurtlar Vadisi Irak" and see how the Turks treat the Kurds in the movie. Not good.

[John Gauger]

41. That's right.

The Kurds are seen as extremely dangerous in the region. They have a history of being fierce and brutal warriors. Remember that the Kurds committed the genocide against the Armenians; the Turks just provided the guns and money. The Turks want very much to keep the Kurds from getting their own state.

[northernsoul]

42. I hadn't heard that about the 1915 Armenian genocide before

Do you have some recommended sources on that?

[John Gauger]

43. I don't know a whole lot about it myself.

Greg Palast lists that among the reasons why the Kurds are so feared in "Armed Madhouse."

The Kurdish Parliament in Exile admits Kurdish participation here.
http://www.cilicia.com/armo10i_kurdistan.html:

Invasion, occupation and division of Kurdistan, has not only affected the Kurds but also the Assyrian-Syrians as well as the Armenian peoples. Imposed colonialist policies have set these people against the Kurdish people and against each other, have created clashes and forced deportations and exiles. In our country, by setting the peoples against each other, the bloodiest imposed period of colonialist policies is 1915 and the few years following that.

On April 24, 1915, the decision of mass genocide and annihilation of the Assyrian-Syrian and the Armenian peoples was taken by the Ottoman Empire.

The blueprints of and the logistics for this genocide being prepared ahead of time, they employed Hamidiye Alaylari from Kurdish tribes (Similar to the present day Village Guards system who kill our people) to commit history’s, until then unknown, Genocide. In this Genocide, millions of Armenians and Assyrian-Syrians were killed, and millions others were deported from their homes and land and scattered to the four corners of the world

[northamericancitizen]

10. Kick and recommended.

[stonecoldsober]

11. I feel sick

:puke:

[Strelnikov_]

13. KSA has little spare capacity. Current price tumble seems to be related

to 1) mild winter in US, 2) funds leaving oil commodities market and 3) some demand destruction kicking in from the high prices in '06.

The Cheap Oil Mirage
James Howard Kunstler, Clusterf*ck Nation
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2007/01/the_cheap_oil_m.html


Otherwise, I agree, things are spinning out of control. In the neo-cons divide and conquer strategy in Iraq pitting Shia v. Sunni, they may have started a conflict that could engulf the oil producing regions of the Middle East, destroying 45% of the worlds petroleum export market.

As for Iran suffering under $50/bbl oil, it was only a few years ago $50/bbl oil was viewed with trepidation, now it is considered a bargain.

[Strelnikov_]

17. ..

oops

[madrchsod]

14. iran`s biggest export in the future is natural gas not oil.

russia-9280bopd
saudi-9000bopd
usa-5120bopd
iran-4035bopd oil production as of sept 2006

saudi`s want iran neutralized but no one knows just how far they will go to do it. it`s a high stake game and the bush whitehouse has no idea how to play the game

[roamer65]

18. Yeah, under contract to China and...

...we're stupid if we think China is just going sit by and let these contracts be invalidated by an American war on Iran.

[vickitulsa]

57. I keep thinking this too. Surely China would NOT just shrug off

attacks by the U.S. on Iran!

China provided (and probably still provides) most of the technology and materials Iran needs for its nuclear program. China has contracts with Iran for LOTS of their oil, and possibly for natural gas too.

China also holds a huge percentage of the U.S.'s national debt and could strongarm us by threatening financial moves that would cripple us.

Why on earth would anyone expect China, then, to stand idly by while the U.S. launched attacks on Iran??

[madmunchie]

15. Glad to be the 5th to recommend

We all should really be scared this time

[roamer65]

16. I just read Obaid's article...

We had better start getting ready for an attack on Iran. The Saudis will not be able to defend themselves against current Iranian troop and munition levels. The US and Israel will attack to blunt Iran's "sword". This will probably be World War III.

[truedelphi]

19. Do you or any other Du'ers have a space in a bunker?

It's time to remember those fallout shelter days

[roamer65]

20. Duck...and cover.

I remember those jingos from the very early 70's.

[NoAmericanTaliban]

34. No, but don't forget to buy your duct tape & platic

is what Vaterland Security recommends. I guess a few gas masks would be helpful as well.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

35. Get those masks here

idf original gas masks,gas mask filter,gas masks for children.

http://www.israelmilitary.com/index.php?cPath=28&osCsid=445c7ebfde73d21e7665261707736766

[Fovea]

21. The thing is

that Saudi presence in Iraq will automatically create Iranian escalation. We will use that as provocation to attack Iran. And that clever rock will ricochet off Iran and hit Syria. When we or the Israelis hit Syria, Saudi Arabia becomes the Islamic Republic of Arabia.

Who will be holding Iraq at that time is anyone's guess, save that I do not think it will be us.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

22. There are about 4 million minority Shiites in Saudi Arabia

who have been suppressed and discriminated against. The Saudi Royal family has tried to keep the peace between the Shiites and Sunni tribes who would like to wipe them out. If the Saudi Shiites decide to start a civil war when their brethren in Iraq are attacked, all hell could break loose.

[mmonk]

23. Incorporate this in your thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3136256

Israeli speaks of strike on Iran needed whereby the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia all seem to be a party to.

[JackRiddler]

24. well reasoned k&r

thanks

[teryang]

25. The US objective has been oil markets and finances

the Saudis have broken their publicly pronounced OPEC obligations because of the security crisis that the US has deliberately created in Iraq. The US policy is diabolically evil but it is clever not incompetent.

The so called failure of OPEC to abide by previously announced cuts is mostly (75%) Saudi production. Much of the rest are the other cowering sheikdoms. Cheney has succeeded in breaking OPEC through force of arms.

This article underestimates Sunni military power. While Sunnis are severely outnumbered, the Shia militias are militarily inferior in training and tactics to Sunni insurgents. The Saudi option is actually preferable to continued US presence in Iraq because a direct military showdown between Saudi backed Sunni forces and the Shia militias and government will result in a negotiated settlement much more readily than the current US policy. The US policy is deliberately aiming at creating more unrest and instability in Iraq, possibly expanding it, in order to provide a further excuse for continued and expanded US military operations under the false pretense of "we're here to help." We aren't there to help, we are there to dominate, secure monopoly control of oil trading practices, and seize oil wherever possible.

SA and the emirates are on the way to becoming vassal states with zero sovereignty if they don't support the Sunni uprising, maintain oil prices, shift to the euro, and demand that the US lower its profile in the persian gulf.

[leftchick]

38. your last paragraph?

What are the chances that will come to pass? It sounds like SA does not have any choices left but to become engaged. Also, will they wait for US forces to leave before arming the Sunnis? Or will it be a Sunni/SA fight against Shiia/US? Now how fucked up would that be?

hi btw! :)

[teryang]

40. This is a two faced game on both sides

I believe that the Saudis need to be engaged in iraq because the neo-con, oil/ financial/ defense contractor objectives are not really attainable as stated. Continued and interminable conflict is the real (sub rosa) US/UK objective and the natural effect of what they are doing in Iraq and to Iran.

Saudi Arabia and the other sheikdoms are very definitely status quo powers. They are frightened by the unstable situation the US has created on their doorstep. Such actions were to be limited to the former soviet areas much further away. It is Israel, UK and US who seek to overturn regimes and change the status quo in the middle east for their own benefit.

The Saudis and other persian gulf nations are vulnerable to their own internal security and regime change problems. How could they embrace the current US created instability without demanding US troop increases, naval presence, missile defense, or else? In order to get it, they must comply with US oil inventory demands.

Creative destruction in the middle east, is it only to be applied to Iraq, Iran and Syria without any impact on Saudi Arabia? This is not likely. Saudi Arabia, is in my opinion, doomed in the long run. They need to set an independent policy or be set up. I can't help but think that they already provide covert support for sunnis in Iraq. They are also primary financiers of al qaeda which is the instrument used by Saudi, US, and Pakistani intel agencies respectively on an opportunistic basis. I think that the Saudis have more leverage in this area than any other other nation, particularly in the gulf region and Iraq. In league with the US, thhey sought to benefit from terrorism, (central Asia, trans caucasus, Serbia, Kosovo, etc.) but now they find themselves potentially on the "creative destruction" plate. They deftly try to use diplomacy and economic power to defend themselves.

All the bs about nuclear programs in Iran is nonsense. Why would Iran be any more inclined to use such weapons in future than any other power that could blown to smithereens by the US or Israel? This is a red herring. A simple statement that SA and the sheikdoms are within the vital interests of the US completely neutralizes any such threat. Israel's deterrent is sufficient in and of itself. The complications are caused by US aggressive designs on the area which are poorly disguised by nonsense pre-emptive doctrines embracing the use of nuclear weapons and prompting proliferation. The real problem with growing Iranian military power, is that if you don't know whether they have nuclear weapons or not, you can never attack them again and hope for a decisive victory or other favorable/controlled outcome.

I think it can be stated as a fundamental principle that any truly sovereign state with resources is going to adopt an anti-imperialist/nationalistic policy that opposes US/UK interference in their markets or resources without arms length transactions on a level playing field. Therefore, what the US nominally seeks in Iraq and Iran can never be achieved. Chaos, divide and conquer, creative destruction, and outright conquest are the imperial alternatives which really dominate the thinking of the elites in the financial, defense, energy, sectors whose views are openly espoused by the neo-cons. These people aren't rouges or fringe elements. This is what they are really doing.

[Straight Shooter]

46. "All the bs about nuclear programs in Iran is nonsense."

The bush administration MO is that When searching for a pretext, choose the one which instills the most fear in the most number of people, taps into their limbic brain and causes them to react destructively rather than act constructively.

You write very well, teryang. Very succinctly, very clearly. I agree with you, "This is what they are really doing." Americans need to be disabused of the notion that the Iran is a nuclear threat or that the bush administration seeks so-called victory in Iraq. Victory has a completely different meaning to those who hold the reins of power in this world than it does to the rest of us.

[leftchick]

48. "creative destruction"?!

What an excellent phrase for this insanity we are witnessing. Teryang, you really should start this as a thread of your own. It is full of angles I had not considered and I am sure I am not alone. Thank you as always for sharing.

:)

[teryang]

55. Thanks for the complement - Hitler was obsessed with Wotan

...the destructive volk god. Creative destruction was a central idea to his sick world view. He had a portrait made of himself dressed in armor mounted on a stallion as the war god himself. I believe that the fascist operative Ledeen is fond of the concept as well. "Dynamic tension" was used in early CIA days as the principle to reduce latin American governments to compliant colonies. Necessarily the principle involves false flag operations, disinformation, murder, torture, terror, etc. The idea was borrowed from the early Nazi operators recruited for work in the CIA. Closely related is the concept, stated more or less as, we make history, let others analyse while we move on to greater acts, openly advocated by the white house. These are all nazi concepts that were known to old time CIA operators and have been revitalized by the neocon "intellectuals" who are students of the straussian view that there is no such thing as human rights and the masses are too dumb to understand foreign policy.

[JCMach1]

26. oh, and Ahmadinejad visited Hugo Chavez-- could it have been

to help counter the oil games the Saudis are playing>>??

I think so...

[donheld]

27. Thank you for posting

Why o why did Bushie have to start this whole fiasco?

[redacted]

28. The facts CNN Money & Reuters are holding back

From karmabanqueradio.com:

"While Goldman's rejigging their index to smash down the price of oil for America’s political wars has convinced your pension funds to dump your wealth into their pockets, here is the true story about the demand side of the oil market. America is only less than 5% of the world’s population, but 99% of the world’s market manipulators. Be warned."

http://karmabanqueradio.com/?p=317

Citing:

ENERGY DUMPED
GOLDMAN CUT POWER SHARES BEFORE OIL PLUNGE
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01082007/business/energy_dumped_business_michael_norman.htm

China oil imports hit record high
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7DEEC69A-0669-4EF2-A652-666D51B23FD3.htm

[Recursion]

29. But, hey, we'll be buying Arab-Israeli peace

At the cost of Arab-Persian war

[leftchick]

30. assuming bush is 'resolute'

and our troops are still there when the Saudi help arrives, it seems to me that it will be American and Iraqi troops(Shiia) fighting the Sunni in this civil war. How fucked up is that? Can we please bring them home now beforee the idiot blows up the whole ME?

:scared:

[Philosoraptor]

31. Meanwhile, we sell EVERYONE arms. It's good for the economy.

[jaksavage]

37. All of us lead cushy lives , cause we kill for oil.

Among other things.

[The Wielding Truth]

51. OMG. Are we supporting BushCo? I think that we could live in luxury

and also live without oil. If we would push alternative energy, and micromanage our lives with small industries then wealth would not be concentrated in mega-corporate monsters that use us as fodder to feed their insatiable greed.

[Sequoia]

36. Was he fired because of his article

that seemed anti-American?

[blues90]

39. After reading this as well as all other posts on this subject , one question

It no longer seems if but instead how long do we have before the entire middle east blows up ?

I had hope that I would never relive duck and cover . I saw some show not all that long ago showing many people who were building new of re-vamping old bomb shelters .

Personally , I don't want to be a neclear surviour sitting in a shelter I would much rather go out in a one man protest in DC or spend my days trying to help rebuild the miss gulf coast and just wait for the blast .

[MilesColtrane]

44. I'm sure the Saudis have agreed to flood the market when we attack Iran.

This will be a misguided attempt at managing the financial consequences of another illegal preemptive attack.

And we've all seen how well BushCo™ manages wars.

I'm buying gold.

[piedmont]

45. How to make a trillion dollars without doing any honest work...

Step 1: Own interest in an energy exploration, pumping or distribution company. Extra points ($) if the same company does all three. Own interest in a weapons or defense-related company or companies.

Step 2: Invade an oil-rich nation (Nation 1) that geographically separates two other oil-rich nations that adhere to diametrically opposed religious beliefs (Nations 2 and 3). The invaded country should ideally be populated by a mix of adherents of both sects.

Step 3: Make the "occupation" of the invaded country such an unmitigated clusterfuck that a civil war erupts between the two sects in question. By this time, the oil production of Nation 1 is but a trickle.

Step 4: Bait nations 2 and 3 into a proxy war or an outright war against each other by threatening to withdraw all your troops, leaving the adherents of both sects in Nation 1 open to slaughter if not supported by an outside benefactor.

Step 5: Count your money after you've sold weapons to every side of the conflict (including your own) and made a genuine oil crisis that your energy company can now exploit to jack up prices and reap the biggest profits in the history of the modern world. Oh, yeah-- and buy another country to flee to with your ill-gotten gains if anyone catches on to what you've done.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

47. while Bush and Cheney are 'faffing around' in the middle east , China is eating our lunch

China is making inroads and the US is on the way down. This adminstration can't see that and is to blame for our country's demise!

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_25/b3938029_mz005.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/29/AR2005072902172.html

[godless]

50. Saudi Arabia

Now hold on there pahdner! Wasn't it the Saudi's that demanded the escalation in their summit with Boom-boom Cheney? Aren't the 20,000 additional troops are actually earmarked to help stem the assault of the Shia militias on the Sunni's insurgency? Doesn't the CIA already have contingency plans to replace Al Maliki and his less-than-satisfactory puppet government with a military coup led by a Sunni General? (The correct answer is yes) And, if that's the plan, doesn't it make sense to send in just enough troops to egregiously raise our death-toll without ever supplying enough manpower to actually accomplish the Stated Mission, a.k.a. securing Iraq?

Our closet-case in office is looking to up the American losses to the extent that nobody even questions the coup-de-tat, since it finally allows us a way to bow out and cease the American human sacrifice. Bush will tell the American public that the duly elected government just wasn't getting it done and throw his support to the new and improved Saddam. We'll start deploying after that, with the major exception that there will then be four shiny new permanent American military bases in Iraq from which the Neo-Con Nightmare Engine can effectively wage war on Iran.

Iraq was the first salvo. The intended target has been Iran all along. Saddam had to go because he started to buck the program, just like so many hired thugs do when they think they're important. Rest assured that when the dust settles it will be Sunni's that call the shots in Iraq. And it will have all been accomplished out of our pocketbooks and at the expense of our children's lives. Ted Haggard made complete suckers out of his parishoners. Our Government is makeing suckers out of us all.

[amandabeech]

56. The Saudis view themselves as the keeper of the Sunni Islamic

faith. They do not want to see their Iraqi Sunni Arab brothers butchered a la Rwanda.

Basically, the Saudis are thought to have told Cheney that if the U.S. doesn't protect the Sunni Arabs, Saudi Arabia will see to it that they are protected, whether the Saudis do it themselves or just pay for it.

The Saudi Shia minority lives on or near the oil terminals and many deposits. The Saudi Royal Family does not want them to get any ideas.

Shrub and his buddies don't want any unreliable group getting its hands on Iraqi oil. That seemed to be the main message in his interview with Jim McNeil the other night. That and NO SACRIFICE on the home front, particularly in efforts to pay for this mess. I guess * wants the Dems to raise the tax--once shrubbie and his friends are ensconced in their Costa Rican haciendas.

[cyberpj]

52. The US will probably have Israel do it's dirty work and attack Iran for us.

Then we will have to "jump in" to "support Israel". Holy war for mideast oil control accomplished.

[lonestarnot]

54. I knew the son of a bitch was up to something when he went there in November.

[tedzbear]

58. I think Saudis have already been helping the Sunnis in Iraq...

...with money and secret munitions. So it's not just Iran that is behind the killing of our soldiers.