As an Iranian I have to emphasis that:
1-Iran have never tried to support islamic extremists groups. 2-We made a deal with 5 1 and Iranian people never ever want to have a neuclear weapons and surely we will do what we promised.
Most people here pray for peace every single day but we are not afraid of KSA and if we are involved in a war, we will win. I bet
Pray for peace .
1-Iran have never tried to support islamic extremists groups. 2-We made a deal with 5 1 and Iranian people never ever want to have a neuclear weapons and surely we will do what we promised.
Most people here pray for peace every single day but we are not afraid of KSA and if we are involved in a war, we will win. I bet
Pray for peace .
3
Where is the United Nations on what side to back?
The United Nations Security Council has unanimously adopted a resolution demanding that Shia rebels immediately relinquish control of Yemen's government .
So, the United States is backing the right player per the UN Vote.
The United Nations Security Council has unanimously adopted a resolution demanding that Shia rebels immediately relinquish control of Yemen's government .
So, the United States is backing the right player per the UN Vote.
My vote is always what is best for the US.
Houthis hate the US more than they hate Al -Qaeda ,
so my vote is for Saudi Arabia.
Houthis hate the US more than they hate Al -Qaeda ,
so my vote is for Saudi Arabia.
1
We, the USA dealing with our allies and foes alike, are clueless, are we not?
3
Didn't say that, said that we can do two things at once, meaning we can work with both at the same time on different things. Not treat them alike.
I'd say it's not the Secretary of State who is clueless.
I'd say it's not the Secretary of State who is clueless.
"Mr. Kerry said "Washington was “not going to stand by while the region is destabilized,”
Well, Mr. Kerry, what are you going to do?
Is Mr. Obama going to draw another "red line" like the one against chemical weapons in Syria that had to be erased when no one in the U.S. wanted military action? Or, having made some 580 drone strikes in Yemen in 2014, are you going to bomb some more and return one of the poorest countries in the world back to the neolithic?
I note the Saudi's were the world's largest purchaser of arms last year, racheting up a bill of some US$10.8 billion.
More arms to the Saudis would certainly help the situation in the Middle East.
The U.S. can do nothing except support its proxies in the region.
Crying wolf, Mr. Kerry, does not help your credibility.
Perhaps your wig is to tight?
Well, Mr. Kerry, what are you going to do?
Is Mr. Obama going to draw another "red line" like the one against chemical weapons in Syria that had to be erased when no one in the U.S. wanted military action? Or, having made some 580 drone strikes in Yemen in 2014, are you going to bomb some more and return one of the poorest countries in the world back to the neolithic?
I note the Saudi's were the world's largest purchaser of arms last year, racheting up a bill of some US$10.8 billion.
More arms to the Saudis would certainly help the situation in the Middle East.
The U.S. can do nothing except support its proxies in the region.
Crying wolf, Mr. Kerry, does not help your credibility.
Perhaps your wig is to tight?
1
I think (and sincerely hope) that the NYT made a mistake in describing Saudi Arabia's "pledge to catch up to Iran in the development of a nuclear weapon." If Saudi Arabia said that it wanted to make progress toward developing a nuclear "weapon," that would be major news.
1
I am puzzled by the pro Saudi stance in the US and the West in general also reflected in this article.
The Saudis have for the last 25 years funded mosques which propagate the Wahabi / Takfiri brand of Islam from Algeria to Indonesia. This brand of Islam forms the religious underpinning of the most violent extremist elements of our time, i.e. Al _Qaida, AQAP, the Taliban, ISIS, Boko Haram and Al- Shabab. The Saudis and the Gulf States fund many of these groups.
Iran restricts its activities and interests to countries in the region with large Shia minorities who are often oppressed by the rulers of these countries.
Iran does support the Palestinian cause. However, despite this the Palestinians have sided with the Saudis against the Iranian forces in conflicts in the region.
In spite of all this the West and the US continues to brand Iran as a promoter of terrorism and expansionist ad Saudi and Gulf states as moderate.
I would think that the rational way for the West would be to try to dry up the support for the extremist groups and the mosques that propagate the Wahabi Takfiri doctrine.
The Iranians should stop voicing their support for the Palestinians so strongly, who do not care much for it anyway and side with Saudi Arabia on all regional conflicts.
Whether this would be the morally correct thing to do for Iran? Probably not. But then the World is not a fair place.
The Saudis have for the last 25 years funded mosques which propagate the Wahabi / Takfiri brand of Islam from Algeria to Indonesia. This brand of Islam forms the religious underpinning of the most violent extremist elements of our time, i.e. Al _Qaida, AQAP, the Taliban, ISIS, Boko Haram and Al- Shabab. The Saudis and the Gulf States fund many of these groups.
Iran restricts its activities and interests to countries in the region with large Shia minorities who are often oppressed by the rulers of these countries.
Iran does support the Palestinian cause. However, despite this the Palestinians have sided with the Saudis against the Iranian forces in conflicts in the region.
In spite of all this the West and the US continues to brand Iran as a promoter of terrorism and expansionist ad Saudi and Gulf states as moderate.
I would think that the rational way for the West would be to try to dry up the support for the extremist groups and the mosques that propagate the Wahabi Takfiri doctrine.
The Iranians should stop voicing their support for the Palestinians so strongly, who do not care much for it anyway and side with Saudi Arabia on all regional conflicts.
Whether this would be the morally correct thing to do for Iran? Probably not. But then the World is not a fair place.
3
First, Kerry is really confused if he thinks negotiating with Iran on nukes while aiding their enemy is doing two things successfully at once. Nukes and expansion by Iran go together. Iran feels emboldened much like their buddy Russia does because Obama is a very weak leader. Russia started their expansion plans when they saw Bush weakening under our financial collapse. Iran and Russia have big plans knowing Obama will do very little to stop their aggression. Obama pledged to the graduating class at West Point that he would not send them to war. Of course this is like saying to a graduating doctor he will not be expected to operate.
Saudis and others will send in ground troops. The region is a mess because the referee, mediator was removed that left a power vacuum.
Saudis and others will send in ground troops. The region is a mess because the referee, mediator was removed that left a power vacuum.
2
Kerry will not stand by and allow Iran to destabilize the region. While we fight a war on Iran's behalf against ISIS. While we make a deal with Iran to please, please, please not have nuclear weapons. While Iran foments unrest in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. And while our sworn ally, Saudi Arabia, foments unrest across the globe through their support of al Qaeda, and in the Levant, through their support of ISIS, who we are fighting, for Iran. Really, you couldn't make this up if you tried.
We have got to be the stupidest empire in all of recorded history. We haven't a clue what we aim to accomplish through our relationships with other countries.
We have got to be the stupidest empire in all of recorded history. We haven't a clue what we aim to accomplish through our relationships with other countries.
3
America has born the brunt of and fomented the broiling ethnic sectarian extremist Sunni Muslim Arab autocrat agenda. The roots of 9/11/01, al Qaeda, al Nusra, ISIS/ISIL and their affiliates were planted in Riyadh, Cairo and Tel Aviv.
Despite being the target of 60+ years of covert and overt American war, Iran has not attacked nor threatened to attack the American homeland. Nor has Iran acquired nuclear weapons. The ethnic sectarian civil war conflict divide between Sunni Muslim and Shia Muslim Arabs, Turks, Persians and Kurds also plays out among Jews, Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants. There is no military solution to any of these disputes, Neither ethnicity nor faith conflicts are subject to resolution by natural law nor logic nor reason nor objectivity.
America must pursue it's interests by mostly following it's values by diplomacy, aid and commerce by pushing civil secular plural egalitarian democracy resting upon a belief in divine naturally created equal persons with certain unalienable rights.
Despite being the target of 60+ years of covert and overt American war, Iran has not attacked nor threatened to attack the American homeland. Nor has Iran acquired nuclear weapons. The ethnic sectarian civil war conflict divide between Sunni Muslim and Shia Muslim Arabs, Turks, Persians and Kurds also plays out among Jews, Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants. There is no military solution to any of these disputes, Neither ethnicity nor faith conflicts are subject to resolution by natural law nor logic nor reason nor objectivity.
America must pursue it's interests by mostly following it's values by diplomacy, aid and commerce by pushing civil secular plural egalitarian democracy resting upon a belief in divine naturally created equal persons with certain unalienable rights.
1
Kerry is trying to buy his way back into the good graces of the Saudi leaders following the end of the treaty framework agreement with Iran on nuclear weapons. As the NYTs reported the Saudi King wants to increase his prestige by using his military in Yemen. And as the NYTs has reported he is playing a dangerous game where he could destabilize his kingdom if the war proves to be long and indecisive. Iran is once again being promoted as a large disruptive player in the situation in Yemen, which it isn't.
2
Has anyone else noticed this?
In an earlier version of this story, the author openly questioned Kerry's claim that many flights per day were flying from Iran into Yemen, noting that the Saudi Arabian military shut down those flights on Day One of its invasion. That observation is conveniently gone from the revised article. But we are left with nothing but Kerry's bald assertion that Iran is providing military aid to the Houthis -- he offers no evidence to support this. His obviously incorrect assertion that planes are arriving from Iran remains incorrect, even if the Times now refrains from pointing out that this cannot be true.
In an earlier version of this story, the author openly questioned Kerry's claim that many flights per day were flying from Iran into Yemen, noting that the Saudi Arabian military shut down those flights on Day One of its invasion. That observation is conveniently gone from the revised article. But we are left with nothing but Kerry's bald assertion that Iran is providing military aid to the Houthis -- he offers no evidence to support this. His obviously incorrect assertion that planes are arriving from Iran remains incorrect, even if the Times now refrains from pointing out that this cannot be true.
3
We don't trust Iran. That is the main cry of those opposed to the nuclear deal. Well, why should Iran trust us? Would you trust a country that comes in, rids its people of a loved leader (because he wants to nationalize oil), replaces the leader with a bad leader which leads to a revolution, a theocracy, and a new leader that many in the west despise. That was U.S. policy. Iran has not forgotten. Is Iran telling half truths? Is the U.S. facing up to the whole truth that past actions have caused the twisted political story playing out today?
2
Four decades ago (late 1973, I believe), Henry Kissinger said the US would not stand idly by if Arab nations tried to shut down Persian Gulf shipping and thus prevent the flow of oil to the US. At the time, this struck me as an inappropriate challenge to Arab-nation sovereignty. But as the years wore on, I came to think Kissinger had been right. For many decades, many Americans have decried the fact that a bunch of desert nomads – typically called "camel jockeys" by such critics – ended up owning huge reservoirs of Middle Eastern oil. Nevertheless, most of us have simply accepted this "accident of history."
If Saudi Arabia becomes too adventurous, however, I for one could see revisiting this issue. I have no particular love for the rulers of that country.
If Saudi Arabia becomes too adventurous, however, I for one could see revisiting this issue. I have no particular love for the rulers of that country.
1
The utter and complete failure of Yemen, that our incompetent President declared a success a model, has endangered Saudi Arabia and the world's oil supply. Worse, its Obama's appeasement and capitulation to those screaming DEATH TO AMERICA in Iran that has done this. Obama's incompetent, disastrous, failed foreign policy is doing damage to our nation, our allies, and the world beyond measure.
2
Here's a typical example of blurring the important distinction between a peaceful nuclear program and a nuclear-weapons program:
"In another statement, released over Twitter along with some of his other remarks, the ayatollah further teased Saudi Arabia about its pledge to catch up to Iran in the development of a nuclear weapon. 'An underdeveloped country said that ‘If Iran has enrichment, we want it too,’ ' he said. 'Well, do it if you can. Nuclear technology is our domestic capability.'"
Do you see anything in that Tweet suggesting that Iran has a nuclear weapon or is making any effort whatsoever to develop one? Yet this article's author quotes that Tweet for precisely that point. Maybe Iran is working on a nuclear weapon, and maybe it's not. But either way, nothing in this Tweet gives any indication of whether it is.
"In another statement, released over Twitter along with some of his other remarks, the ayatollah further teased Saudi Arabia about its pledge to catch up to Iran in the development of a nuclear weapon. 'An underdeveloped country said that ‘If Iran has enrichment, we want it too,’ ' he said. 'Well, do it if you can. Nuclear technology is our domestic capability.'"
Do you see anything in that Tweet suggesting that Iran has a nuclear weapon or is making any effort whatsoever to develop one? Yet this article's author quotes that Tweet for precisely that point. Maybe Iran is working on a nuclear weapon, and maybe it's not. But either way, nothing in this Tweet gives any indication of whether it is.
2
Could it be that Saudi Arabia wants to save Al Qaeda in Yemen, since Houthis and allies are going to crush them? After all Al Qaeda ideology and funding comes from Saudi Arabia. Lets stop this halucination of calling Saudis an ally. No matter what, Al Qaeda, ISIS ideology and funding from Saudi is the single and only threat to humanity. Imagine their restraint if these radical groups get their hand on something...
5
Why does Yemen's territory have to be a consolidated nation-state? Why not strive for separate units, if just a North and South Yemen as before, or further state divisions by tribal or other affiliations? The parts are likely greater than the (w)hole.
Afterwards, long after the dust settles, the bodies are buried, Al Qaeda and other non-state terrorists are miraculously eliminated, the separate units can decide on any willing inter-affiliations by federation or treaty arrangements.
This could be accomplished by a combination of with-and- without foreign meddling.
Afterwards, long after the dust settles, the bodies are buried, Al Qaeda and other non-state terrorists are miraculously eliminated, the separate units can decide on any willing inter-affiliations by federation or treaty arrangements.
This could be accomplished by a combination of with-and- without foreign meddling.
2
Here goes the US again - picking winners and losers. That has not worked out in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. Kerry's statement that Iran shouldn't be aiding rebels in Yemen when Obama has made clear that he can and will bomb (aka support) anyone in any country at any time is hypocrisy in its purest form.
8
Who is kidding who when Kerry says "Washington was “not going to stand by while the region is destabilized.” Kerry has done more to destabilize the region than anyone else with all the concessions to Iran.
3
President Obama: get out of the Middle East, and leave them fight among themselves as they see fit! The US has enough oil under its own soil not to have to worry about what Saudi Arabia, our "ally", think.
2
We may have the energy resources, but our allies Europe and Japan do not. You may think we can go it alone, but our economy would be destroyed if the energy flow from the Middle East were seriously disrupted or stopped, and by disrupted I mean 30 or 50% UNEMPLOYMENT. The outlook is even worse if the place goes nuclear. Obama has already created absolute disaster. Pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist is not an option for sane people.
1
The air campaign by Saudis was the last nail in their gasket, initially milled by Obama and Kerry! Even Pakistani parliament vote to stay neutral rather than backing Saudi in Yemen, despite all the money Saudi generously spend to keep Pakistan in its side! Essentially rich Arab sheikhs thought they can buy everything with their money, but this time they are getting a lesson. They couldn't imagine even in their worst nightmare that Americans sell them to Iran while they consider themselves an ally to America and Iranians an openly foe to them! Sheikhs, in addition to money and oil, sometimes you need to use your brains too, if you dare to stop thinking about camels and women for a sec.!
It looks to me like Saudi Arabia, with its increasingly aggressive stance, is trying to sabotage the US-Iran deal...
11
First of all there is no deal with Iran. There is only appeasement and surrender. Saudi Arabia know that and yes it is opposed to Obama's surrender to Iran because it means Iran will have NUKES and more money to spread terror. Saudi Arabia isn't alone. Israel, Egypt, Turkey, and Jordan all see what Obama is doing as complete surrender that will end in catastrophe for them and the entire world. They are right!
2
"...the U.S. can do two things at the same time...." (aid the Saudis and conclude the nuke deal with Iran).
There is little doubt that the US can do these things "at the same time."
However, the issue is whether it is wise to do so.
It is interesting that the Administrations defends the "supreme leader's" comments as merely for "internal consumption," (Death to America, sanctions must be immediately lifted, the Houthis will prevail, etc.).
Yet Bibi's comments are not dismissed as "merely for internal consumption" but serve as a stick for the US to "re-evaluate" US policy toward an ally.
The anti-Zionist (Zionism being my liberation movement), anti-Semitic BDS wing of the Democratic Party will yet become an achilles heel for the Party in the 2016 presidential contest. When Hillary gets challenged, it will be on Obama's foreign policy, and the mess he has made, not GB, of the Middle East.
Many of our alliances are problematic, but you leave the dance with whom you took. The iranians, whom the President has touted as a potential "rational regional power," are nothing more really than an organized bunch of fanatical religious thugs.
The moral relativism of many Posters here is mocked by the fact that even the "guardians of Mecca" feel safer with a nuclear Israel as opposed to a nuclear Iran.
And we will pay the price for failing to tighten sanctions against these thugs, and preventing a repeat of the North Korean nuclear farce.
There is little doubt that the US can do these things "at the same time."
However, the issue is whether it is wise to do so.
It is interesting that the Administrations defends the "supreme leader's" comments as merely for "internal consumption," (Death to America, sanctions must be immediately lifted, the Houthis will prevail, etc.).
Yet Bibi's comments are not dismissed as "merely for internal consumption" but serve as a stick for the US to "re-evaluate" US policy toward an ally.
The anti-Zionist (Zionism being my liberation movement), anti-Semitic BDS wing of the Democratic Party will yet become an achilles heel for the Party in the 2016 presidential contest. When Hillary gets challenged, it will be on Obama's foreign policy, and the mess he has made, not GB, of the Middle East.
Many of our alliances are problematic, but you leave the dance with whom you took. The iranians, whom the President has touted as a potential "rational regional power," are nothing more really than an organized bunch of fanatical religious thugs.
The moral relativism of many Posters here is mocked by the fact that even the "guardians of Mecca" feel safer with a nuclear Israel as opposed to a nuclear Iran.
And we will pay the price for failing to tighten sanctions against these thugs, and preventing a repeat of the North Korean nuclear farce.
3
Pakistan lawmakers voting to stay out of the Yemen conflict should pave the way for others to do the same. Escalation of the conflict is not the solution to conflict resolution. The situation in Yemen has worsened since the bombardment. Pulling out American civilians from the war torn region has become more difficult if not impossible. They could have been rescued by the Indians or the Pakistanis. The Indians have completed their rescue mission and are not going to have any more. The sectarian violence is fueled by foreign powers. By taking sides the war has been escalated. Instead all concerned should call for a cease fire. Violence will not result in victory for either side. If at all it will boost terrorist organizations. Does not look like anyone is going to take the lead to stop the nonsense of killing. India and Pakistan have sunk their differences to help each other in the rescue operations and by not taking sides they will have the credibility to be neutral peacemakers and they have set an example by their humanitarian actions. Screw the tanks, the bombers, the rocket launchers, IEDs etc and all the killing machines of hate and death.
2
" ... Tensions Between Iran and Saudi Arabia Deepen Over Conflict in Yemen ..."
No folks, this is the overture to an all out shooting war between Saudi Arabia and Iran as the Saudis fear that this is their last chance to keep their regional leadership role under the wings of the US before the sanctions against Iran might be lifted.
This is not about tensions, this is about regional domination as Iran has, for decades, not bowed to Saudi requests of submission due to the fact that the kingdom is home to two out of three of the holiest sites of Islam.
And a desert culture like the one the Saudis have does not like a conquered culture, that is the way they see the Persians since Islam was brought to Persia some 1300 years ago, to challenge their supposed religious and regional supremacy.
What we see in Yemen might well be the beginning of an all out shooting war of the Saudis against Iran and in which the US has, as always, taken sides in the wrong manner.
Should the US withdraw its support to Saudi Arabia, this all out shooting war would be an afternoon of firecrackers as the Saudi army knows very well that that they do not stand a chance against the Iranians despite al high tech military gadgets that money has bought them.
As soon as he Saudis will see themselves on the losing side of he war, they will call for their nuclear arsenal already stored in Pakistan and use it.
I wonder how the US government will react to this scenario?
Blame Iran as always?
No folks, this is the overture to an all out shooting war between Saudi Arabia and Iran as the Saudis fear that this is their last chance to keep their regional leadership role under the wings of the US before the sanctions against Iran might be lifted.
This is not about tensions, this is about regional domination as Iran has, for decades, not bowed to Saudi requests of submission due to the fact that the kingdom is home to two out of three of the holiest sites of Islam.
And a desert culture like the one the Saudis have does not like a conquered culture, that is the way they see the Persians since Islam was brought to Persia some 1300 years ago, to challenge their supposed religious and regional supremacy.
What we see in Yemen might well be the beginning of an all out shooting war of the Saudis against Iran and in which the US has, as always, taken sides in the wrong manner.
Should the US withdraw its support to Saudi Arabia, this all out shooting war would be an afternoon of firecrackers as the Saudi army knows very well that that they do not stand a chance against the Iranians despite al high tech military gadgets that money has bought them.
As soon as he Saudis will see themselves on the losing side of he war, they will call for their nuclear arsenal already stored in Pakistan and use it.
I wonder how the US government will react to this scenario?
Blame Iran as always?
2
For the inner circle of Saudi princes and billionaire scions, the ultimate toy is a fighter jet. Now that one of their number is the Minister of Defence, these young bucks finally have carte blanche to go ahead and have some fun with them...with the blessing of the Wahhabi elite (who have declared this to be a holy war) and the White House. Indiscriminate high altitude bombing may cause havoc, bloodshed and destruction, but the Houthis are a superior fighting force and would likely humiliate Saudi troops on the ground. Because the Saudi army is wary of an actual invasion, the Houthis have no means of fighting back....other than via acts of terrorism against Saudi civilians, which I think are becoming more likely by the day, given the large Shia element of the Saudi population, who no doubt have sympathy for their spiritual brothers in Yemen. The hotheaded actions of Mohamed Bin Salman have thus created a state of extreme insecurity within his own country...and it is the Saudi monarchy that has the most to lose.
1980's - Iran supreme leader says "arming and funding Hezbollah to attack and murder Jews and Americans? who us? what nonsense!"
1990's - Iran supreme leader says "arming and funding Hamas and Islamic Jihad to attack and murder Jews and wreck the Middle East peace process? who us? what nonsense!"
2000's - Iran supreme leader says "arming and funding Shiite militias in Iraq to kill US troops and pave the way for a sectarian Shiite government? who us? what nonsense!"
2010's - Iran supreme leader says "arming and funding Assad in Syria to murder his own citizens but preserve our ally in power? who us? what nonsense!"
2010's - Iran supreme leader says "arming and funding the Houti's in Yemen? who us? what nonsense!"
Anyone detect a pattern here?
1990's - Iran supreme leader says "arming and funding Hamas and Islamic Jihad to attack and murder Jews and wreck the Middle East peace process? who us? what nonsense!"
2000's - Iran supreme leader says "arming and funding Shiite militias in Iraq to kill US troops and pave the way for a sectarian Shiite government? who us? what nonsense!"
2010's - Iran supreme leader says "arming and funding Assad in Syria to murder his own citizens but preserve our ally in power? who us? what nonsense!"
2010's - Iran supreme leader says "arming and funding the Houti's in Yemen? who us? what nonsense!"
Anyone detect a pattern here?
1
There is a major problem when leaders think "they have to support their allies NO MATTER WHAT"!
Real LEADERS are those who challenge their allies/friends/partners when they see something wrong. They can do it privately, publicly...etc. however they wish, but WRONG does not become RIGHT just because "they are our allies"!
US MUST act like a leader by getting everyone to stop the attacks and talk together to a peaceful resolution.
Such an action will benefit everyone and will enable US to be seen as "the peace broker"!
Real LEADERS are those who challenge their allies/friends/partners when they see something wrong. They can do it privately, publicly...etc. however they wish, but WRONG does not become RIGHT just because "they are our allies"!
US MUST act like a leader by getting everyone to stop the attacks and talk together to a peaceful resolution.
Such an action will benefit everyone and will enable US to be seen as "the peace broker"!
2
Frack baby Frack, let's cut the oil cord and let the Chinese deal with getting the oil.
I want to raise an Infidel army and we will storm the polls and vote out anyone who continues funding the death and dismemberment of our children.
A 50 cent a gallon tax to fund the war on fossil fuel dependence. the pot would be so huge that even the war industries would want in.
It could be done in 5 years.
A 50 cent a gallon tax to fund the war on fossil fuel dependence. the pot would be so huge that even the war industries would want in.
It could be done in 5 years.
The Houthi rebels have a legitimate claim here, perhaps even more so than the Syrian rebels we sided with. Yemen has been stagnating in virtually every way and this minority group sees Hadi, a corrupt billionaire supported by Saudis, as part of the problem. Yemen has been a failing state for decades, but Kerry and Obama do NOT feel they can oppose Saudi designs right after having challenged Israeli ones. The appeasement that the GOP accuses Obama is not taking place with regards to Iran; it is taking place with regards to Saudis.
The Saudi and Israeli narrative of Iran being on the march to spread its political ideology and rule as much of the Arab world as possible is a red herring: Iran HAS taken advantage of opportunities to intervene in crises of others' making to safeguard its own interest, but it is the Saudis who have been at the root of those crises: Saudis and their neighboring compliant sheikhdoms are the ones who have been supporting Al Qaeda, Syrian Rebels, & Al-Nusra and others and are at this very moment training thousands of Syrian fighters in a new national rebel force to help defeat Bashar al-Assad and act as a counterweight to increasingly powerful jihadi organizations they aided and armed originally. With Saudi money and Israeli lobby groups, this country has no hope of ever being able to implement a sane and logical pathway to solving ME problems. If anything we are going to be part of the problem.
The Saudi and Israeli narrative of Iran being on the march to spread its political ideology and rule as much of the Arab world as possible is a red herring: Iran HAS taken advantage of opportunities to intervene in crises of others' making to safeguard its own interest, but it is the Saudis who have been at the root of those crises: Saudis and their neighboring compliant sheikhdoms are the ones who have been supporting Al Qaeda, Syrian Rebels, & Al-Nusra and others and are at this very moment training thousands of Syrian fighters in a new national rebel force to help defeat Bashar al-Assad and act as a counterweight to increasingly powerful jihadi organizations they aided and armed originally. With Saudi money and Israeli lobby groups, this country has no hope of ever being able to implement a sane and logical pathway to solving ME problems. If anything we are going to be part of the problem.
2
No wonder Iran wants the sanctions released immediately at the signing! Because when the inevitable war starts between them and Saudi Arabia they will need to finance it and they'll never get sanctions off their back after war starts. That Ayatolla is a smart chess player.
2
The conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran and Israel for that matter has always been there. The difference today is that with Yemen it is first time in modern history that the Saudis have taken action of any kind outside their borders. They have never lifted a finger for the Palestinians or anyone else in the region. We have army and air bases all over S.A. We pour money endlessly to them as we do with Israel. Too early to fret for their quagmire in Yemen. They can flatten those tribes in a matter of months if they want to.
Let me get this straight. The Saudis fund Sunni extremists throughout the globe. They create insecurity in the West. Meanwhile, the Iranian theocracy comes to the rescue of its co-religioners is criticized for responding in kind. Well a diplomatic crisis is a terrible opportunity to waste. Should the Saudis and Iranians engage in a conflict without Western intervention, we could end up reaping all of the rewards. The Saudi monarchy goes to the guillotine, the Iranian nuclear infrastructure gets destroyed, and we get the oil - from both. All we have to do is sit down, lie back, and confiscate the wells. Extremist Islam loses its source of funding and dictatorships can be installed, a step up from kings and wizards.
1
Funny, I dont recall Khamenei having any battle field experience or any military experience. Who made him commander is chief, in other words. Who is he to comment on anything that involves leading men into the charge? Any strpes on his pillow tuban?
But, he believes he can critisize the Saudi defense minister, Prince Mohamed bin Salman?
He's out of his religious and self-pious domain.
But, he believes he can critisize the Saudi defense minister, Prince Mohamed bin Salman?
He's out of his religious and self-pious domain.
It's an odd thing - Secretary Kerry warning Iran to stay clear for fear of destabilizing the middle east. The real destabilizing force is us. Perhaps if we butted out it would force the Middle East to find their own solutions.
2
"Perhaps if we butted out it would force the Middle East to find their own solutions."
Sure, as we did Europe do the same during the early years of WW-2.
Sure, as we did Europe do the same during the early years of WW-2.
Greetings ever ignorant American friends. Welcome to the world of unintended consequences and American foreign policy. Our current policy is watching with a mixture of revulsion and confusion from the sidelines where all of our ducks in the Saudis tub, while the Saudis jostle with the Iranians, and the Pakistanis - various factions - make mischief from the sidelines along with China in Yemen.
For $100, what's the biggest cash crop in Yemen? Ding, ding, too late. It's Khat. For those of you who are still scratching your head, it is a stimulant, permitted (well not prohibited) by the Koran, whose active ingredient is a euphoric stimulant, cathinone, which degrades upon lack of moisture into a more disruptive stimulant cathine. It's also the drug of choice for most of the Yemeni suicide bombers. It's also been cropping up in concentrated transportable organic form on the market via Pakistani drug dealers appearing to be using a process similar to making hash oil. It also may be facing competition from a synthetic bath salt that is easy to overdose with causing rather intense psychotic episodes. Why would all that be occurring. I really can't imagine how the same places that seem to be fueled by weapons, cash and guns always seem to be the next flavor du jour for drugs no matter how toxic. But, never mind, the DEA has been caught in a conundrum for years regarding the banning of Khat being interpreted as specifically an anti-Islam gesture. More fun to come.
For $100, what's the biggest cash crop in Yemen? Ding, ding, too late. It's Khat. For those of you who are still scratching your head, it is a stimulant, permitted (well not prohibited) by the Koran, whose active ingredient is a euphoric stimulant, cathinone, which degrades upon lack of moisture into a more disruptive stimulant cathine. It's also the drug of choice for most of the Yemeni suicide bombers. It's also been cropping up in concentrated transportable organic form on the market via Pakistani drug dealers appearing to be using a process similar to making hash oil. It also may be facing competition from a synthetic bath salt that is easy to overdose with causing rather intense psychotic episodes. Why would all that be occurring. I really can't imagine how the same places that seem to be fueled by weapons, cash and guns always seem to be the next flavor du jour for drugs no matter how toxic. But, never mind, the DEA has been caught in a conundrum for years regarding the banning of Khat being interpreted as specifically an anti-Islam gesture. More fun to come.
Why, exactly, are we throwing our support behind Saudi Arabia, the country where Al Qaeda was born and financed, and who supplied most of the 9/11 hijackers? ISIS also was born in Saudi Arabia, and even today, most of its financing comes from the Sunni Gulf states. And yet we throw in our lot with the Saudis. Mysterious.
7
For the same reason that US government is tearing itself off to get a deal with Iran who has killed more American troops than al-Qaeda via its proxies in Lebanon and Iraq! Sometimes political moves are strangely silly look while you need to track cash flow somewhere else to find out the logic!
1
We all know it is inevitable that the situation in the Middle East is only going to get worse. The artificial national borders that were fixed by the European colonization do not reflect the tribal and religious demographics of their citizens yet we continue to try to preserve the current structures. It is doomed to fail.
We should have cut our losses many years ago and pursued a policy of energy independence through green renewable energy to wean the developed world off of its addiction to fossil fuels and withdrawn from the region. This would also have mitigated global climate change. We only have ourselves to blame and of course the Big Oil firms who ensured that such a policy would never happen.
We should have cut our losses many years ago and pursued a policy of energy independence through green renewable energy to wean the developed world off of its addiction to fossil fuels and withdrawn from the region. This would also have mitigated global climate change. We only have ourselves to blame and of course the Big Oil firms who ensured that such a policy would never happen.
12
Right. But also a diminished western war mongering industries complex too.
President Obama proclaimed Yemen as a shining example of American military, intelligence and diplomatic Middle East success and victory.
Why didn't the Houthi agree and go along?
Why didn't the Houthi agree and go along?
Saudi Arabia sees Yemen as its backyard as much as Russia sees Ukraine!
The Houthi rebels are members of Zaidis, who make up one-third of the population and ruled North Yemen for almost 1,000 years until 1962. So the Saudis just can't wipe them off Yemen's map!
Iran may have provided financial aid and weaponry, but it is hardly engaged in the conflict there, like in Iraq and Syria! Its involvement in Yemen seems more symbolic, serving to enhance its image rather than cementing power in the Arabian Peninsula.
It's unclear whether it's wise for John Kerry to say that the US would support any state in the Middle East that felt threatened by Iran, and would not "stand by" if Iran destabilised the region. But Iran is hardly the only troublemaker there!
The Houthi rebels are members of Zaidis, who make up one-third of the population and ruled North Yemen for almost 1,000 years until 1962. So the Saudis just can't wipe them off Yemen's map!
Iran may have provided financial aid and weaponry, but it is hardly engaged in the conflict there, like in Iraq and Syria! Its involvement in Yemen seems more symbolic, serving to enhance its image rather than cementing power in the Arabian Peninsula.
It's unclear whether it's wise for John Kerry to say that the US would support any state in the Middle East that felt threatened by Iran, and would not "stand by" if Iran destabilised the region. But Iran is hardly the only troublemaker there!
15
We were warned that destabilizing Iraq would lead to the ignition of a growing Sunni v. Shia war and now were wondering: "why did this happen?" Add to the mix millions of disaffected Arab and Persian young people with absolutely no hope of a future with a family, job, et cetera.
Are the major powers in the region fueling the problem. Of course they are! Saudi courts tell young criminals to either "join the Jihad (outside Saudi Arabia) or go to jail." Both the governments of Saudi Arabia as well as Iran fund these groups and encourage migration to the war zones. Disaffected young people outside the Middle East are flocking to join the battle not only against the other expression of Islam but also against "The West."
I'm saddened but not surprised. This is a replay of human history that has often been repeated and it will not end until all sides have seen enough bloodshed to sicken them. Unfortunately the psychopaths who tend to dominate these groups will never see enough bloodshed nor the end of their nihilist vision of the future.
The seeds were sown over many generations and the harvest of hatred is ripe. Still most Western observers look and fail to recognize what is happening or why it is happening.
Are the major powers in the region fueling the problem. Of course they are! Saudi courts tell young criminals to either "join the Jihad (outside Saudi Arabia) or go to jail." Both the governments of Saudi Arabia as well as Iran fund these groups and encourage migration to the war zones. Disaffected young people outside the Middle East are flocking to join the battle not only against the other expression of Islam but also against "The West."
I'm saddened but not surprised. This is a replay of human history that has often been repeated and it will not end until all sides have seen enough bloodshed to sicken them. Unfortunately the psychopaths who tend to dominate these groups will never see enough bloodshed nor the end of their nihilist vision of the future.
The seeds were sown over many generations and the harvest of hatred is ripe. Still most Western observers look and fail to recognize what is happening or why it is happening.
10
Oh John Kerry sharply warned the Iranians! I am sure they are really really scared. Why is anyone surprised. These two countries are sectarian enemies. We need to move away from this battle. We will never win or even get a thank you from the Saudis. We are infidels to them --fit only to do their dirty work. When will we ever learn.
15
Whose side are on in this one? Iran or Saudia Arabia or Yemen or the Sunnis or the Shiites or who?
I get so confused.
I get so confused.
3
I was lucky enough to serve in the Peace Corps in Yemen from 1987 to 1989. It was (and still is, I imagine) a starkly beautiful country. At the time, I was 21 years old and just out of college. I had never traveled anywhere in the world. Living in Yemen changed me in ways I am still just discovering, even 25 years later.
People in Yemen were just like people in America. I experienced staggering kindness and mindless prejudice, and everything in between.
I also realized something about world affairs during my time in Yemen. I saw that every person in Yemen knew a LOT about the American President and American policies in the Middle East. Yet, at the time, nobody in America knew there even was a country called Yemen. Now that Yemen is in the news so often, Americans need to know a bit about the place and are having to scramble to find out what is going on.
At its root, the current conflict in Yemen is NOT a fight between Saudi Arabia and Iran. It is an internal struggle between the government and a group that has felt marginalized for a long time. I fear for Yemen now that the "big boys" are getting in on the act.
http://c-dawson.blogspot.com/2010/01/ali-abdullah-saleh.html
People in Yemen were just like people in America. I experienced staggering kindness and mindless prejudice, and everything in between.
I also realized something about world affairs during my time in Yemen. I saw that every person in Yemen knew a LOT about the American President and American policies in the Middle East. Yet, at the time, nobody in America knew there even was a country called Yemen. Now that Yemen is in the news so often, Americans need to know a bit about the place and are having to scramble to find out what is going on.
At its root, the current conflict in Yemen is NOT a fight between Saudi Arabia and Iran. It is an internal struggle between the government and a group that has felt marginalized for a long time. I fear for Yemen now that the "big boys" are getting in on the act.
http://c-dawson.blogspot.com/2010/01/ali-abdullah-saleh.html
12
Yemen is a place with long simmering tensions which has descended into Civil war and chaos. It is also a proxie war. Who to root for I do not know, but Al QUeda and ISIS now have a place to work out the need for a detonation device to get through Airport security. They want fantastic attacks on commercial aircraft as well as coordinated attacks on NY and DC. All they need is the explosives. The sleeper cells are already in place.
Kerry's disingenuous anguish about destabilization of the Middle East must surely be the most ironic sound byte of diplomatic hypocrisy uttered ever given that the USA was the instigator of the current chaos. It's closest allies, the despotic Saudis and colonialist Israelis continue to foment anarchy in the region, while another ally, the epicenter of world terrorism, Pakistan, as client state of the Wahhabi Monarchy, will undoubtedly provide the Sunnis forces the ultimate weapon against Iran and the Shias. Teheran has good reason to be terrified of this outcome, and equally good reason to want to develop its own Shia bomb.
13
Imagine where the US economy would be now without fracking. For years we were dependent on Mideast oil and were forced to defend our economic interests. It is apparent that US military power can and does produce further instability and unintended consequences. The only wise long term approach is to preserve our resources, strengthen our economy and focus our efforts on protecting American interests first. This requires American leadership to present a unified and cohesive front rather than the hyper partisan legacy seeking bungling of our current administration. New leadership cannot come soon enough.
4
Protect our American interests first you say. When you have a Country the size of the USA, your going to have a lot, and I mean a lot of interests all over the world. You don't stay the most powerful Country on the planet by sitting on the side lines.
In this area tribal and religion are not easily separated. The Saudis with their own version of Sunni Islam believe that any other version of Islam is corrupt or heresy. Yemen has nearly 40% of the population who are Shiite. That is a very large dis-empowered minority. You do not have to like or approve of a situation to acknowledge it, and to be a newspaper it should be reported a bit more informatively and less as the tool of interventionists.
12
Good to hear from, and be read by, Scotland!
The common bond for the Sunnis and the Shites are their hatred of the infidels ( Christians are bearing the brunt of this today with religious killings).
This kind of stupid US foreign involvement makes a Democrat want to vote Libertarian.
11
It is really interesting to see nytimes admitting the fact that Iran and Saudi monarchy support opposite sides in every M.E. conflict.
So if Iran supports Iraq in the face of ISIS, who do the Saudis support?!
If Iran supports Syrian government in the face of ISIL and Alnusra front,who do the Saudis side with?!
So the U.S. is actually helping terrorists by helping Saudi Monarchy.
When will the American people wake up?!!!
So if Iran supports Iraq in the face of ISIS, who do the Saudis support?!
If Iran supports Syrian government in the face of ISIL and Alnusra front,who do the Saudis side with?!
So the U.S. is actually helping terrorists by helping Saudi Monarchy.
When will the American people wake up?!!!
23
Secretary John Kerry claims the United States "can walk and chew gum at the same time" is not reassuring when the nuclear talks with Iran are in doubt at the 9th hour while we are on opposite sides with the Saudis fighting in Yemen. The Yemen conflict is an example of exactly why we should not trust nuclear verification access. THe Iranian supreme leader has already confirmed this with a statement that access to military facilities will be denied for verification purposes. Game over folks in my eyes unless your John Kerry who will accept this just to do a deal.
5
Reading all these articles and comments, what comes to mind is men, not women, and the insecurity and basic fear that promotes the outlandish need for power and blowing up people and the world for 1000s of years.
Barbaric behavior. Way past the time to be grown up adults.
Barbaric behavior. Way past the time to be grown up adults.
4
Its time to cut our ties to corrupt and disgusting government of Saudi Arabia for the sake of her own people.
7
There is not a parent in this nation that should not have already let their congress-person know that the US should stay far away from this war. No guns, no support for the Saudi's, no involvement at all !
14
America sailed around the 4 oceans of the world
America has thousands of military bases in every corner of the world
America has proudly declared to the world that they are good forces that is needed to protect security and peace.
Now when civil war broke up in a little nation called Yemen, America doesn't even lift its finger to order for the peaceful settlement, it even assist Saudi in logistic and material support to attack Yemen.
America is no longer a peacemaker but a troublemaker. It doesn't talk the talk and walk the walk anymore. It's time America packed its bag and go home for the sake of peace for mankind.
America has thousands of military bases in every corner of the world
America has proudly declared to the world that they are good forces that is needed to protect security and peace.
Now when civil war broke up in a little nation called Yemen, America doesn't even lift its finger to order for the peaceful settlement, it even assist Saudi in logistic and material support to attack Yemen.
America is no longer a peacemaker but a troublemaker. It doesn't talk the talk and walk the walk anymore. It's time America packed its bag and go home for the sake of peace for mankind.
11
The US-carpetbombing of Cambodia only resulted in the swift rise of the murderous Khmer Rouge, not the defeat of the Viet Cong. So Yemen could become the next "Kampuchea" as Saudi Arabia is bombing the country to smithereens.
5
The vitriol against Iran in many of these comments has become uncoupled from any assessment of the situation in Yemen or the broader region. Not a sparrow can fall in the area without sage prognosticators (who are almost never correct, but no matter) determining that Mullahs whom we do not like (as opposed to theocrats that we do) are up to something nefarious and must be countered.
The "coalition" that the House of Saud is leading is mostly composed of Gulf principalities steeped in long histories of human rights abuses, along with Egypt, whose military government is eager for a veneer of international respectability, and Sudan, whose leader is internationally wanted on charges of genocide. One of these countries, Bahrain, was itself invaded by the House of Saud a couple of years ago to crush a poplar uprising. Meanwhile, the US has been using Yemen as a free-fire zone for its drone war, yet seems surprised at how "unstable" it has become. Strategic conclusion: the problem at the root of this mess is Iran. If the Iranian Mullahs are indeed "winning" this "conflict", as the Qartari-connected Mr Roberts asserts, it is only because the "crazy-bar" has been set so high that even they (and, sadly, seemingly only them) can now fit under it.
We are witnessing the death-throes of an old order in the ME. The shape of what will replace it is still very unclear, but one of the riches families on the planet paying to bomb some of its poorest people is not going to help matters.
The "coalition" that the House of Saud is leading is mostly composed of Gulf principalities steeped in long histories of human rights abuses, along with Egypt, whose military government is eager for a veneer of international respectability, and Sudan, whose leader is internationally wanted on charges of genocide. One of these countries, Bahrain, was itself invaded by the House of Saud a couple of years ago to crush a poplar uprising. Meanwhile, the US has been using Yemen as a free-fire zone for its drone war, yet seems surprised at how "unstable" it has become. Strategic conclusion: the problem at the root of this mess is Iran. If the Iranian Mullahs are indeed "winning" this "conflict", as the Qartari-connected Mr Roberts asserts, it is only because the "crazy-bar" has been set so high that even they (and, sadly, seemingly only them) can now fit under it.
We are witnessing the death-throes of an old order in the ME. The shape of what will replace it is still very unclear, but one of the riches families on the planet paying to bomb some of its poorest people is not going to help matters.
12
Given the fact that Iran has no control over the group (as this article already confirms)..It would seem that it is not that Iran is winning, it is that Saudis and their allies are loosing!
Yet again, Iran's "intelligence foreign policy" will end up winner, by just sitting and watching others (Saudi, US and allies...) work themselves into a frenzy of WAR WAR...BOMB BOMB....
When the dust settles, Yamani PUBLIC of all persuasion and their friends will look around and decide "which countries caused the death and destruction in their country?" At that point, they will "look to BEFRIEND the country that opposed the aggressors"!....yes.....who else....but... Iran!
Will US ever learn?
Yet again, Iran's "intelligence foreign policy" will end up winner, by just sitting and watching others (Saudi, US and allies...) work themselves into a frenzy of WAR WAR...BOMB BOMB....
When the dust settles, Yamani PUBLIC of all persuasion and their friends will look around and decide "which countries caused the death and destruction in their country?" At that point, they will "look to BEFRIEND the country that opposed the aggressors"!....yes.....who else....but... Iran!
Will US ever learn?
13
I'm glad you have the other Op-ed on why our backing Saudis in Yemen is futile. This is a civil war and all sides must push for ceasefire and negotiations. The Houthis are not going to lose this one and bombs won't change it. The only realistic hope is getting Al Queda out of their new area and set up a gov't that allows Houthis more than they've been allowed ever under previous dictators/repressive regimes. It can be worked out, they had offered to talk before the bombing began. Saudis not being realistic and worried about waterway rights. It can all be worked out with less compromise than Saudis are realizing. Otherwise it could be years. Kerry send your guys. This is a mistake by Saudis. Neither bombing nor ground forces will uproot the Houthis with Saleh as leader/director. Hadi has no credibility. Saudis been too paranoid and trigger happy, should send in a senior negotiator and stop the bombing.
5
"But others argued that the deal had instead emboldened Iran to flex its muscles against Saudi Arabia."
It wasn't Iran that toppled the government of Iraq and turned it into an ungoverned territory. It wasn't Iran that cooked up an uprising in Syria and turned that too into an ungoverned territory. Iran has its hands full, and certainly has no reason to start trouble in Yemen.
Me thinks Kerry is opening his mouth without knowing his facts. He based his comments on the fact that there were 5 day a week flights from Tehran to Yemen. Really?
It wasn't Iran that toppled the government of Iraq and turned it into an ungoverned territory. It wasn't Iran that cooked up an uprising in Syria and turned that too into an ungoverned territory. Iran has its hands full, and certainly has no reason to start trouble in Yemen.
Me thinks Kerry is opening his mouth without knowing his facts. He based his comments on the fact that there were 5 day a week flights from Tehran to Yemen. Really?
12
And to think this man is thinking of running for President. Frightening.
"Washington was “not going to stand by while the region is destabilized,” Mr. Kerry said in an interview with “PBS NewsHour” on Wednesday night.'
Uh, Mr. Kerry, the region has been destabilized since our cowboy President Bush and his draft-dodging, Vice-President Cheney (and their buddy, Bibi Netanyahu) thought that we'd be welcomed as liberators in Iraq, installing democracy as far as the eye could see. Except everything went wrong from the very first minute. Of course Bush the Elder knew this would occur and didn't overreach in the first Gulf War. Toppling Saddam Hussein expanded Iran's power and influence throughout the region. Our best bet is to disengage in the Middle East. A pox on all their houses.
Uh, Mr. Kerry, the region has been destabilized since our cowboy President Bush and his draft-dodging, Vice-President Cheney (and their buddy, Bibi Netanyahu) thought that we'd be welcomed as liberators in Iraq, installing democracy as far as the eye could see. Except everything went wrong from the very first minute. Of course Bush the Elder knew this would occur and didn't overreach in the first Gulf War. Toppling Saddam Hussein expanded Iran's power and influence throughout the region. Our best bet is to disengage in the Middle East. A pox on all their houses.
14
Nobody understands what is really going on. There is no international order anymore. The Security Council is made up of 5 countries that profit from war and are at war with each other. The international institutions are a complete failure.
9
Our friends, the Saudis, are not good guys. It was not Iranians who attacked us on 9/11! We should GET OUT of the middle east. Iran can and will take care of ISIL. They don't need our help. We can't afford to spend money on wars. We need to spend our money HERE at home.
15
It seems the US is determined to keep the wealthier, more socially advanced Muslim countries in chaos--Iraq, Libya, Syria, and now Iran. Why?
8
It is to keep it jungle all around the villa. Otherwise, the villa feels threatened by neighboring development.
3
This country's foreign policy in the middle east and basically world wide has the same template. Simply put it's like knowingly driving down a dead end street then blindly trying to bulldoze your way through back to a road leading to nowhere. The bad blood that this country willfully instigated in Iraq btw the Shia and Sunni has produced an irreparable domino effect. It's time to reap the bitter fruits now.
5
There was bad blood between Shia and Sunni prior to our involvement in Iraq, however, Hussein silenced anyone who complained. The US created a power vacuum and the rest is history.
There appears to be no clear understanding regarding past and continuing events in the Middle East. Yesterday is not like today which is denied by tomorrow. Consistency of policy is impossible. All those entities who are “newly” involved have created even more chaos than already existed there, often for ages. Such crazy instability denies fathoming the genuine interests, values and loyalties of any participant. Muddling through makes no sense, since “through” never arrives, yet we either accept it as a crazy way to be there or get out. Who can hope for a recognition of some sort of inter-dependence of well being among crazy participants?
The US learned the hard way in Iraq that if you break it, you own it. Saudi Arabia seems to have ignored this dictum in Yemen.
3
I see that a lot of people are suggesting that the US is hypocritical for opposing Iranian involvement in Yemen while it supports Saudi involvement. However, the two forms of intervention are not equivalent. The Saudis are acting in support of the Hadi government, which in early February UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon called to be restored to power. In fact, two weeks ago Ban said, "I have repeatedly condemned the attempts by the Houthis and former President Saleh to undermine political agreements by military force. I take note that military action has been undertaken at the request of Yemen's sovereign and legitimate leader, President Hadi." So clearly one side (i.e., the side that the US and Saudi Arabia support) has UN backing.
1
Is this not one more tragedy in the Middle East shaped by American commitment to Saudia Arabia, its ally, and its inability to "think Iranian". John Kerry is transformed overnight from patient negotiator to instant supporter of Saudi bombng of Yemen and of sending weaponry to the Saudis. He does this while at the same time condemning Iran as destabilizer.
How is one to possibly grasp Kerry's transformation in the face of the essential fact that the greatest destabilizater in the Middle East was the US war on Iraq and the aftermaths shaped by that war and Saudi support of fundamental Islam?
Most of the 48 comments in print express the same thought I express here and Mark Thomason presents the essence of those 48 in a single phrase: "Iran is not the problem here."
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
An American who simply cannot fathom my government's actions in the ME.
How is one to possibly grasp Kerry's transformation in the face of the essential fact that the greatest destabilizater in the Middle East was the US war on Iraq and the aftermaths shaped by that war and Saudi support of fundamental Islam?
Most of the 48 comments in print express the same thought I express here and Mark Thomason presents the essence of those 48 in a single phrase: "Iran is not the problem here."
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
An American who simply cannot fathom my government's actions in the ME.
9
So when can we "officially" say that World War III has started?
So The U.S Russia, and China use proxies all over the map to bomb each others pile of rocks into another pile of rocks and underneath all these rocks are women and children either crushed, obliterated, incinerated or scared for their lives. The problem with all of these proxies is that nobody has to pick a side. The faceless, coward superpowers get to hide their greedy, petty irresponsible motives and the general public is none the wiser. I respect what Kerry has done for this country and I don't admire the position he's in, but if he had more than 2 sides to his mouth he'd be using that one too.
The world is burning, entire nations are in chaos. Human right abuses have to be at an all time high. When can we start the discussion of disbanding the completely inept U.N. We need to re-group and realign. The U.S needs to be rid of allies who do not uphold the same democratic values we do. If we are going to fight in the 21st century lets fight the good fight.
So The U.S Russia, and China use proxies all over the map to bomb each others pile of rocks into another pile of rocks and underneath all these rocks are women and children either crushed, obliterated, incinerated or scared for their lives. The problem with all of these proxies is that nobody has to pick a side. The faceless, coward superpowers get to hide their greedy, petty irresponsible motives and the general public is none the wiser. I respect what Kerry has done for this country and I don't admire the position he's in, but if he had more than 2 sides to his mouth he'd be using that one too.
The world is burning, entire nations are in chaos. Human right abuses have to be at an all time high. When can we start the discussion of disbanding the completely inept U.N. We need to re-group and realign. The U.S needs to be rid of allies who do not uphold the same democratic values we do. If we are going to fight in the 21st century lets fight the good fight.
2
We should be allies with Iran, not the country that attacked us on 911.
56
Al-Qaeda attacked the US on 9/11, not Saudi Arabia.
Agreed, Principia. "“Deep down, the Iranians know that they are winning,” said Michael Stephens, the head of the Royal United Services Institute in Doha, Qatar." Is that such a problem (for anyone but Republicans in Congress) if the loser is a fascist state that funds Wahhabi terrorists who fly planes into tall buildings and take pleasure in decapitating American hostages in Syria? The Iranians didn't fund 9/11. The Iranians didn't fund ISIS. Surely the good guys are the Iranians, not the Saudi thugocracy.
2
It's looked you are talking on behalf of a Christian....you could watch this whole scenario on an eye of Jewish ...for whom vanishing Iran is making atomic bomb,training,funding Hezbollah's terrorist ....
2
My big concern is the USA not become embroiled in their conflict.
21
We already are and on the side of the brutal and cruel theocracy...which one you ask. Saudi Arabia of course. We are fools.
3
And so the Middle East continues to ensure that it will never join the first world and will continue to depend heavily on imports from developed nations and waste the intellectual capital of its citizens.
6
In view of its worsening poverty and water shortages, the only way Yemen can continue as a liveable human habitat is via some kind of redistribution of oil wealth of Arabian peninsula towards it. Whether the Saudis defeat Yemen or Yemen defeats and dismantles the House of Saud, but either way some form of unification of those two states needs to happen. Ideally, all the monarchies on the peninsular (KSU, UAE, Oman, Qatar, Bahrein and Kuwait) will be dissolved and join with Yemen into a unified Republic of Arabia.
3
Not to be a pessimist, but the fight in Yemen is based in longstanding tribal disputes that have simmered for hundreds of years. Yemen itself will never be united, let alone join with all the many other tribal groups in the other countries of the Arabian Peninsula. Yemenis fear and distrust Saudi Arabia.
1
My father, a serious student of ME history and geopolitics, told me in the late 60's, "Son, American foreign policy is predicated on domestic politics, not on what is best for our country." That is true in spades in this situation, today. Our politicians are caving/have caved to AIPAC for domestic political reasons. They are harming our future in that region, will cost the taxpayer much money and accomplish less than nothing. We need to have a rational foreign policy devoid of Netanyahu and AIPAC.
24
"Our politicians are caving/have caved to AIPAC for domestic political reasons."
What are those "domestic political reasons"?
What are those "domestic political reasons"?
What does this situation have to do with AIPAC? It is strange that some NYTimes readers use any bad situation in the ME to start a rant against Israel and Netanyahu.
In fact, President Truman jumped to recognizing Israel so quickly because of domestic politics. To win a very close election in 1948, he played to the American Jewish voter. Q.E.D. That's exactly what Republicans are doing today.
2
Kerry - negotiating a deal that would reward Tehran for providing guarantees that it was not building nuclear weapons.
How do we reward Tehran for "not building a nuclear bomb"
when no one from the IAE will be allowed to inspect it?
Per the Supreme leader of Iran -
" military sites would be strictly off limits to foreign inspectors."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/world/middleeast/iran-khamenei-rouhani...
So, basically, we should just take Iran's word and trust it as the truth.
Once again, folks here should look up the meaning of this word, taqiyya,
deception directed at non-Muslims ( that is us, the infidels) which has Qur'anic support and falls within the legal category of things that are permissible for Muslims.
Ibn al-'Arabi declares that "in the Hadith [sayings and actions of Muhammad], practicing deceit in war is well demonstrated.
Ibn al-Munir (d. 1333) writes, "War is deceit, i.e., the most complete and perfect war waged by a holy warrior is a war of deception, not confrontation, due to the latter's inherent danger, and the fact that one can attain victory through treachery without harm [to oneself]." And Ibn Hajar (d. 1448) counsels Muslims "to take great caution in war, while [publicly] lamenting and mourning in order to dupe the infidels."[14]
How do we reward Tehran for "not building a nuclear bomb"
when no one from the IAE will be allowed to inspect it?
Per the Supreme leader of Iran -
" military sites would be strictly off limits to foreign inspectors."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/world/middleeast/iran-khamenei-rouhani...
So, basically, we should just take Iran's word and trust it as the truth.
Once again, folks here should look up the meaning of this word, taqiyya,
deception directed at non-Muslims ( that is us, the infidels) which has Qur'anic support and falls within the legal category of things that are permissible for Muslims.
Ibn al-'Arabi declares that "in the Hadith [sayings and actions of Muhammad], practicing deceit in war is well demonstrated.
Ibn al-Munir (d. 1333) writes, "War is deceit, i.e., the most complete and perfect war waged by a holy warrior is a war of deception, not confrontation, due to the latter's inherent danger, and the fact that one can attain victory through treachery without harm [to oneself]." And Ibn Hajar (d. 1448) counsels Muslims "to take great caution in war, while [publicly] lamenting and mourning in order to dupe the infidels."[14]
4
Pakistan has nukes. Iran might want nukes to avoid being attacked by us. I dont blame them. The danger is Pakistan and the Saudis.
2
No matter who wins the rest of the world loses
2
It is instructive that the Saudis (and other Sunni dominated countries) will not put boots on the ground to combat ISIS. Although no faction in Yemen had invaded Saudi Arabia nor attacked it with rockets, mortars, etc., and there is no functioning central government in that country, however, the Saudis have undertaken an aggressive and indiscriminate air war against Yemen. What is the justification for this under international law? Moreover, why is the US actively abetting Saudi aggression by resupplying them with weaponry?
Is it surprising that Iran does not trust the US? Should the US be surprised when Iran refuses to take the negotiations for limiting their nuclear capability seriously and instead accelerate their attempt to join the nuclear weapons club? Expect Iran to practice Taqiyya - dissembling - based on the Koran (16:106) which Shiite teaching justifies in the face of the danger of losing life or property.
Is it surprising that Iran does not trust the US? Should the US be surprised when Iran refuses to take the negotiations for limiting their nuclear capability seriously and instead accelerate their attempt to join the nuclear weapons club? Expect Iran to practice Taqiyya - dissembling - based on the Koran (16:106) which Shiite teaching justifies in the face of the danger of losing life or property.
11
Afghanistan and Yemen have something in common. Both are a death trap for invading armies. Should the Arab union led by Saudi Arabia put boots on the ground, expect mounting losses specially if Saudi decides to prolong the campaign. The public outcry in Arabia would threaten some regimes to be overthrown. Most of the Gulf states have not been involved in a serious war so there is no exact prediction to how far the public would pressure its country(s) to seize the campaign and bring the troops back.
There is not such a thing as Taqiyya as you mention.Stop spreading hatred and let your president who is by far the most reasonable amongst your presidents a chance for peace.
1
"“The last thing the region and our world need is more of the chaos and crimes we have seen in Libya and Syria,” (Ban) said."
It's true that we don't need it but we're certainly going to get it, so, as Friedman might say, "Will someone please hand me the popcorn?"
It's true that we don't need it but we're certainly going to get it, so, as Friedman might say, "Will someone please hand me the popcorn?"
3
Lest we forget, the Saudis gave us the bombings of our embassies in east Africa in '98, Al Qaeda, 9/11, Bin Laden and ISIS. And now they are bombing the only rebel group who has effectively marginalized Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula where our drone war failed.
Why do we keep referring to them as our ally? Why does every US president regardless of party orientation kowtow to their king? Fly their citizens in the US when the skies were closed after 9/11?
We don't have an alliance, we have a weapons market.
Why do we keep referring to them as our ally? Why does every US president regardless of party orientation kowtow to their king? Fly their citizens in the US when the skies were closed after 9/11?
We don't have an alliance, we have a weapons market.
35
It's all about money, your political institutions are inundated in petrodollars of every arab dictatorship.
By the way what happened to that Robert Menendez guy?!?!
By the way what happened to that Robert Menendez guy?!?!
You have hit the nails firmly not their heads. Saudi Arabia has done more damage to this country than anyone is the last twenty years except maybe our bankers. We simply refuse to accept that they are not our friends. We are their infidel servants worthy only to clean up their mess.
It has grown out of recycling all those petrodollars.
Look at the picture in today's paper. The Saudis are massing old US-made M-60 tanks without updates. They spend vast amounts of money, but they don't buy things that make sense even from a military point of view.
They just spend those petrodollars. They buy airplanes they can't maintain. They guy stuff they never update and can't use. They are not much different in all this from Libya's Gaddafi amassing vast weaponry that sat rusting.
Look at the picture in today's paper. The Saudis are massing old US-made M-60 tanks without updates. They spend vast amounts of money, but they don't buy things that make sense even from a military point of view.
They just spend those petrodollars. They buy airplanes they can't maintain. They guy stuff they never update and can't use. They are not much different in all this from Libya's Gaddafi amassing vast weaponry that sat rusting.
Lost in all the talk of Iranian aid to the Houthis is the basic question: what right do the Saudi rulers have to start bombing a neighboring state? Is it because:
Yemen attacked Saudi Arabia?
the UN sanctioned the aggression against Yemen?
the Saudis needed to justify hoarding hundreds of billions of weaponry?
or simply because the U.S. gave the go ahead?
Using Pentagon jargon to mask aggression is not suited to a fundamentalist state ruled by latter-day "princes" in tandem with the Wahabi sect which has inspired the numerous groups that are terrorizing the Middle East and beyond. The final absurdity of the Saudi position is that its aggression is to defend a government that no longer exists and a president (Hadi) who is seeking refuge everywhere but in Yemen.
Yemen attacked Saudi Arabia?
the UN sanctioned the aggression against Yemen?
the Saudis needed to justify hoarding hundreds of billions of weaponry?
or simply because the U.S. gave the go ahead?
Using Pentagon jargon to mask aggression is not suited to a fundamentalist state ruled by latter-day "princes" in tandem with the Wahabi sect which has inspired the numerous groups that are terrorizing the Middle East and beyond. The final absurdity of the Saudi position is that its aggression is to defend a government that no longer exists and a president (Hadi) who is seeking refuge everywhere but in Yemen.
23
I'm confused, the Saudi's are allies of the United States. Why would Obama turn his back on them and all of our prior middle eastern allies (Israel) to sign a nuclear deal with Iran?
If you think the middle east is chaotic now, just wait until Iran has economic sanctions lifted and can fully fund its terrorist organizations. Did I also mention that Iran would keep its nuclear infrastructure intact?
The straw man argument, war, posed by Obama is weak. A handful of well placed airstrikes will set Iranian enrichment back years. Israel did a fine job with stuxnet. Tighten sanctions and do everything you can to keep Iran from enriching uranium.
If you think the middle east is chaotic now, just wait until Iran has economic sanctions lifted and can fully fund its terrorist organizations. Did I also mention that Iran would keep its nuclear infrastructure intact?
The straw man argument, war, posed by Obama is weak. A handful of well placed airstrikes will set Iranian enrichment back years. Israel did a fine job with stuxnet. Tighten sanctions and do everything you can to keep Iran from enriching uranium.
4
"Why would Obama turn his back on them and all of our prior middle eastern allies (Israel) to sign a nuclear deal with Iran?"
Simply because we need Iran's help to prevent Iraq from falling under ISIS control. As you might recall, ISIS was sacked out of Tikrit only after both the US and Iran joined forces to assist what had become a muddled and stalemated Iraqi offensive to retake the city.
The US has to go with Iran because no other countries, not even Israel, can save Iraq and Syria from the Islamic State, or so it appears...
Simply because we need Iran's help to prevent Iraq from falling under ISIS control. As you might recall, ISIS was sacked out of Tikrit only after both the US and Iran joined forces to assist what had become a muddled and stalemated Iraqi offensive to retake the city.
The US has to go with Iran because no other countries, not even Israel, can save Iraq and Syria from the Islamic State, or so it appears...
2
When was the last time Iran attacked another country?
2
"I'm confused, the Saudi's are allies of the United States."
I agree ... you are confused. The Saudis may be allies of the United States on paper, but hardly in practice. What country produced 15 of the 19 hijackers? What country funds Wahhabi schools that spread hatred? What country does not allow women to drive? What country supports (or at least refuses to help fight) ISIS? Saudi Arabia (not Iran).
I agree ... you are confused. The Saudis may be allies of the United States on paper, but hardly in practice. What country produced 15 of the 19 hijackers? What country funds Wahhabi schools that spread hatred? What country does not allow women to drive? What country supports (or at least refuses to help fight) ISIS? Saudi Arabia (not Iran).
2
Saudi and GCC military violate the sovereignty of Yemen...This war is totally ethnic war .This is not a shia vs sunni war..The Houthi are allied with the former president Saleh(has sunni belief) himself a Houthi and replaced two years ago with his vice president Hadi after a U.S. induced light coup...and U.S. is direct supporting i.e. guiding the campaign through a coordination cell..Also, Yemen is a future major supplier of oil..Guess who is willing to use wahabis proxies to secure these resources..
5
Really distressing to read they are taunting each other about nuclear technology and weapons.
3
Mr Kerry suggested that the US was "not going to stand by while the region is destabilized.”
Funny that they were front and centre in both Iraq wars, Libya, unflinching support of Israeli transgression and Egypt to say the least.
Pot calling the kettle black?
Funny that they were front and centre in both Iraq wars, Libya, unflinching support of Israeli transgression and Egypt to say the least.
Pot calling the kettle black?
11
I didn't realize the Saudis had a 30 year old defense minister. The madness (one only wishes it were March) begins to make sense then.
Hand the throne to an 80 year old next in line guy, who then gives his itchy 30 year old son the launch codes (as everyone knows we have no middle ground here).
Of course, given the level of discourse, Khameni's twitter account is probably operated by his 13 year old daughter (hey, it's American social media, there is a fatwa against octogenarians, and despite a minister who likes walking along a lake, can't be outdone in that no middle ground thing).
Hand the throne to an 80 year old next in line guy, who then gives his itchy 30 year old son the launch codes (as everyone knows we have no middle ground here).
Of course, given the level of discourse, Khameni's twitter account is probably operated by his 13 year old daughter (hey, it's American social media, there is a fatwa against octogenarians, and despite a minister who likes walking along a lake, can't be outdone in that no middle ground thing).
4
Oh for gosh sakes, Mr. Kerry, keep your mouth shut and stay the heck out of this! What good can possibly come of our intervening in a clash between Shiites and Sunnis? This has been building up, off and on, for centuries. Let them have it out- whether in Yemen or Iraq or Syria or all of the above- and let them take ISIS and al-Qaeda with them. And may the jaws of Hell open wide enough to swallow them all. (Who knows; we may finally be able to pivot to southeast Asia after all...)
36
Re: Sunni/Shiite schism in this, the two largest Sunni powers are Turkey and Pakistan, and both met in the last few days with Iran to call for an end to this fighting.
The Saudis are bombing, but Iran isn't. The Saudis are sending troops, but Iran isn't. The Saudis are sending money, but Iran doesn't even have money on anything like that scale after long sanctions. The US is providing the bombs and other ammo for all this, and Iran is providing next to nothing, in a place already awash with the rifles and such that it has to offer.
Iran is not the problem here.
The Saudis are bombing, but Iran isn't. The Saudis are sending troops, but Iran isn't. The Saudis are sending money, but Iran doesn't even have money on anything like that scale after long sanctions. The US is providing the bombs and other ammo for all this, and Iran is providing next to nothing, in a place already awash with the rifles and such that it has to offer.
Iran is not the problem here.
87
Mark Thomason: "Iran is not the problem here." Please state the facts upon which you make that claim. As far as I am concerned, Iran is definitely supporting the Houthis with money and materiels.
3
Iran never does anything directly, they do it by proxies, Hezbollah and hamas are tow good examples. So the fact that they are not directly bombing means nothing.
5
And just how do you know how much money do Iranians have? Despite the sanctions, Iran's economy has been growing fast - which is the reason it is so emboldened in nuclear negotiations. Only the US and some Western countries sanction Iran; China - the largest consumer of oil, is Iran's largest customer. So yes, Iran does have money, and it is heavily using them to fund Houthis, as well as Hamas and Hezbollah and al-Assad.
2
To be fair, this does not so much raise tensions as reflect the tensions that have been there since before the Shah. They two have been rivals forever, and leaders of a larger rivalry.
6
For readers who don't know who the Houthis are or that they are fighting al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), America's arch enemy, here is a link to a PBS Frontline TV documentary broadcast on April 7, 2015:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/frontline-fight-for-yemen
Saudi Arabia is on the wrong side of this fight, and the USA has no side. The American drone war in Yemen is a disaster. Iran is not a significant player in Yemen despite Saudi claims.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/frontline-fight-for-yemen
Saudi Arabia is on the wrong side of this fight, and the USA has no side. The American drone war in Yemen is a disaster. Iran is not a significant player in Yemen despite Saudi claims.
48
The former President of Yemen who is fronting for the Houthis was the US guy for 30 years, before an Arab Spring event that went badly.
Even before him, we sided with that side against the commies of Aden backed by Russia.
The only problem here is that the Saudis are on the wrong side, and Iran is on the right side for our past alignments.
Even before him, we sided with that side against the commies of Aden backed by Russia.
The only problem here is that the Saudis are on the wrong side, and Iran is on the right side for our past alignments.
23
Mark:
The Houthis have as much of an ability to take down the Saudi Monarchy as they have to take down Israel and the USA, all three of whom they oppose. Their immediate problem is AQAP, and they fear, with some justification, being attacked by ISIS. A total mess. Saudi Arabia is either exploiting the situation or overreacting, but they clearly are making the situation worse, particularly for civilians unfortunate enough to live where fighting is taking place. Yemen is rapidly becoming the worst of Libya, Syria, and Iraq all rolled into one.
The Houthis have as much of an ability to take down the Saudi Monarchy as they have to take down Israel and the USA, all three of whom they oppose. Their immediate problem is AQAP, and they fear, with some justification, being attacked by ISIS. A total mess. Saudi Arabia is either exploiting the situation or overreacting, but they clearly are making the situation worse, particularly for civilians unfortunate enough to live where fighting is taking place. Yemen is rapidly becoming the worst of Libya, Syria, and Iraq all rolled into one.
2
The only problem? The problem is militarism and fundamentalist religious violence, not sides.
3
Frontline aired a show about Yemen a couple of nights ago. There is nothing the that the Saudis and Iranians can do to scramble the situation any worse than it is now. The region is being torn apart by ISIS, AQAP, the Houthis, the old regime, the new regime, the Saudis, the Iranians, the northerners and the southerners. I'm sure I left out a few warring factions.
Destabilized is diplomatic speak for no longer exists. The place is shot. Iran is taking advantage of the situation to expand their influence. The Saudis are doing the same. The locals, well they are just getting in the way.
Remember Syria? Meet the new Syria.
Destabilized is diplomatic speak for no longer exists. The place is shot. Iran is taking advantage of the situation to expand their influence. The Saudis are doing the same. The locals, well they are just getting in the way.
Remember Syria? Meet the new Syria.
17
And it is all compounded and intensified by climate change in Yemen as it is in Syria.
What appears like indiscriminate bombing in Yemen by SA is not going to endear them to many countries in the mid-east. The US must be very careful regarding military support to the Saudis. Animosity between factions of Islam is long standing and major wars have been fought between countries with religious differences as a causus belli.
12
The Saudi's have already put together a coalition of ten Arab nations, including Egypt, so your statement it "is not going to endear them to many countries in the mid-east" is bogus. To the contrary, I rather think that Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, et al would outnumber the supporters of Iran in the Middle East (in terms of both the number of countries, and the aggregate populations).
2
Well, no. The Shia Iran is in itself a relatively recent production - starting with Safavid dynasty of Iran that took power in the 16th century. They established Shia Islam as the official religion and forcibly converted other Muslims. The Shia-Sunni animosity as in its present form can only be safely traced since then. So it's not Shia-Sunni animosity, it's mainly Iran - former Ottoman Empire states animosity. Of course all the Sunni states have been fighting each other all the time, but they do unite whenever they stand against Iran. And there are simpler economic explanations to this animosity, rather than religious.
2
With more and more areas destabilized between radical Sunni groups (ISIS, al Qaeda, etc) and hyper-aggressive Shia groups, the entire Middle East more and more resembles the insanely violent chaos of Lebanon in the 80s, which Iran also directly fanned.
Iran really does not look like a country we can ever trust or make deals with. I am afraid that one day we will find that their leaders are as nihilistic and intent on an existential struggle with the West as the Wahhabi jihadis.
It becomes increasingly hard to envision any sort of effective or constructive engagement with these Muslim countries.
Iran really does not look like a country we can ever trust or make deals with. I am afraid that one day we will find that their leaders are as nihilistic and intent on an existential struggle with the West as the Wahhabi jihadis.
It becomes increasingly hard to envision any sort of effective or constructive engagement with these Muslim countries.
17
Most Muslims don't even live in the Mideast. And, Iranians are the opposite of nihilists, they are ancient, and will be right there in 1000 years.
7
Religion pretty much rules out reason wherever it dominates.
The Saudi Defense Minister doesn't seem to realize that air power, by itself, is rarely effective.
In the beginning of the 20th century, military theorists posited that air power would overwhelm an adversary and that the terrorized citizenry would beseech the government to sue for peace. It rarely works out that way.
When London was bombed in ww2, the people were galvanized to fight, more unified than ever, and workers, in munitions plants, worked till they dropped. In 1944, German military production was higher than it was in 43, even though in 44 Germany was more vulnerable to, and subject to, more bombing. This is because the bombing of Germany made the German people more resolute. During the Vietnam war, there was no gun control in the North, and many citizens had lots of armaments, and this is because the govt. did not fear an armed citizenry. Very simply, because the people were being pulverized by US bombs, they all wanted their nation to triumph and were more defiant in fighting the Americans.
But as the article stated the Saudi defense Minister is 30, has a skimpy resume and his main qualification is his status as the King's son.
In the beginning of the 20th century, military theorists posited that air power would overwhelm an adversary and that the terrorized citizenry would beseech the government to sue for peace. It rarely works out that way.
When London was bombed in ww2, the people were galvanized to fight, more unified than ever, and workers, in munitions plants, worked till they dropped. In 1944, German military production was higher than it was in 43, even though in 44 Germany was more vulnerable to, and subject to, more bombing. This is because the bombing of Germany made the German people more resolute. During the Vietnam war, there was no gun control in the North, and many citizens had lots of armaments, and this is because the govt. did not fear an armed citizenry. Very simply, because the people were being pulverized by US bombs, they all wanted their nation to triumph and were more defiant in fighting the Americans.
But as the article stated the Saudi defense Minister is 30, has a skimpy resume and his main qualification is his status as the King's son.
13
David Gottfried: Saudi Arabia has already publicly stated it is prepared to commit an army of 150,000 to the coalition it has already put together, most notably with Egypt and Pakistan. it is now a question of which other coalition members are prepared to commit troops on the ground, and how many.
1
The Germans lost the air war vs the British in the skies over England, so that's a poor example. The bombing of Germany did effectively and decisively destroy it's capacity to make serious hi-tech war by robbing it of oil and ball bearings etc., so when we invaded we owned the skies. The Vietnamese won a war of attrition, so it was not a failure of our air power, it was a failure of willingness to take casualties (thank god) that lost us Vietnam.
I agree air power will not end a guerrilla war, but you have the history wrong. That said, it causes the Saudis little harm to kill some militants.
I agree air power will not end a guerrilla war, but you have the history wrong. That said, it causes the Saudis little harm to kill some militants.
2
@David Gottfried: "... air power, by itself, is rarely effective."
The Saudi ambassador to Washington said that: “Right now, we are in the air phase ...”, so ground forces could be committed later. See this earlier Times article:
Saudis Ask Pakistan to Join the Fight in Yemen
By SALMAN MASOOD and KAREEM FAHIM
APRIL 6, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/world/middleeast/saudis-seek-pakistani...
The Saudi ambassador to Washington said that: “Right now, we are in the air phase ...”, so ground forces could be committed later. See this earlier Times article:
Saudis Ask Pakistan to Join the Fight in Yemen
By SALMAN MASOOD and KAREEM FAHIM
APRIL 6, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/world/middleeast/saudis-seek-pakistani...
Iran has no real power opposing it. (Imagine it, on steroids, once the billions start pouring in after the sanctions are lifted?)
The US would normally represent some pushback, but we're obviously holding back because of the deal we are seeking with it. Instead, we are doing *something* with the Saudis. It's hard to tell what, exactly.
The US would normally represent some pushback, but we're obviously holding back because of the deal we are seeking with it. Instead, we are doing *something* with the Saudis. It's hard to tell what, exactly.
4
AACNY: Obama's policy is now to step back and give the Arab nations the responsibility to manage such affairs, with America and other Western nations ready to support any new and positive developments. As such, Arabs vs. Persians, or Sunni vs. Shia is not a bad position for the U.S. to take, and it is well past time for all nations in the Middle East to solve their own issues internally.
4
Saddam's Iraq was the only power constraining Iran. When that was destroyed it was smooth sailing for the ayatollahs. Well done, USA.
6
Do you have a point? Iran has not move an army outside it's border in 400 years. Every nation uses it's influence in other nations, why should Iran be any different? And why in the name of non-existent gods are we responsible for "pushing back" on Iran? Should Iran be in Mexico?
2
By siding with Saudi Arabia in supporting its military intervention in Yemen, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are leading the United States pellmell into the midst of the Sunni-Shiite religious war being waged by Iran and the Saudi kingdom, and their proxies. This is a no-win situation where there is now the potential for direct conflict between the two nations resulting in a major regional war that engulfs the entire oil-rich Arabian peninsula threatening the global economy. It also puts at risk the U.S.-led negotiations to rollback Iran's nuclear program that could result in a nuclear arms race with all its catastrophic risks. While we constantly demonize Iran for its support of terrorists, we should also stop pretending that the Saudis have not acted in a similar manner with regard to al-Qaeda which originated in Saudi Arabia and has morphed into ISIS. Our Constitution is unique in its religious neutrality and that should be an essential part of U.S. policy in the region. The alternative is another and much larger war in the region that could enmesh major world powers.
36
Wow, so the 30-year-old Saudi defense minister is bombing Yemen because he "sees" the Houthis as an instrument of Iranian power. (The boy wonder was appointed to his exalted post by his father the King.)
But that is a lie, according to the Times op-ed published yesterday by Emma Ashford. Or she puts it more diplomatically, an "oversimplification at best".
"While the Houthis are Shiites, their Zaydi faith is theologically distinct from the Shiite practices of most Iranians. Historically, there are limited ties between them and Tehran. And although Iran has given the Houthis some financial support, it has not been directly involved in the conflict."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/opinion/bombing-yemen-wont-help-it.htm...
It is disgraceful that the US is offering military assistance to the Saudi bombing campaign instead of working to halt the bloodshed.
Both Ashford and Khamenei plausibly claim that the Saudi campaign is doomed to fail in any case. And there is a real danger that Yemen could turn as bad as Syria.
But that is a lie, according to the Times op-ed published yesterday by Emma Ashford. Or she puts it more diplomatically, an "oversimplification at best".
"While the Houthis are Shiites, their Zaydi faith is theologically distinct from the Shiite practices of most Iranians. Historically, there are limited ties between them and Tehran. And although Iran has given the Houthis some financial support, it has not been directly involved in the conflict."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/opinion/bombing-yemen-wont-help-it.htm...
It is disgraceful that the US is offering military assistance to the Saudi bombing campaign instead of working to halt the bloodshed.
Both Ashford and Khamenei plausibly claim that the Saudi campaign is doomed to fail in any case. And there is a real danger that Yemen could turn as bad as Syria.
63
You nailed it "...It is disgraceful that the US is offering military assistance to the Saudi bombing campaign instead of working to halt the bloodshed. ..".
Why don't we follow some solid principal rather than half-baked near term reasons? We supported the Pakistani generals, because of the cold war; we support the Saudis because they have oil, which we don't need now. We have supported Israel for 60 years for the right reasons; but now we don't need to because they are strong, economically and militarily secure. We don't need to meddle between Shias and Sunnies. However if Iran signs the deal, it will be nice to have a healthy relationship with Iran as a democratic fulcrum of middle east. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, does not believe in education for its citizens, thinks that women are properties and not humans, has no democracy and no rule of law. Let them stay in 17th century.
Why don't we follow some solid principal rather than half-baked near term reasons? We supported the Pakistani generals, because of the cold war; we support the Saudis because they have oil, which we don't need now. We have supported Israel for 60 years for the right reasons; but now we don't need to because they are strong, economically and militarily secure. We don't need to meddle between Shias and Sunnies. However if Iran signs the deal, it will be nice to have a healthy relationship with Iran as a democratic fulcrum of middle east. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, does not believe in education for its citizens, thinks that women are properties and not humans, has no democracy and no rule of law. Let them stay in 17th century.
6
And when Yemen falls apart, in steps ISIS or one of its brother organizations.
What country has done more to destabilize the Middle East than Saudi Arabia? The country that brought the world 9/11, the resulting Iraq and Afghanistan debacles post-9/11, ISIS, and now this insane conflict in Yemen -- thanks, Saudi Royal Family!
The U.S. will obviously continue to support the barbaric Saudis in this ridiculous conflict, but the reality is that nothing could be better for the Middle East than liberating Iran to be a strong, regional hegemon.
(Note that I state "what's best for the Middle East." That means the ENTIRE Middle East -- and not just Israel. Sorry, AIPAC.)
The U.S. will obviously continue to support the barbaric Saudis in this ridiculous conflict, but the reality is that nothing could be better for the Middle East than liberating Iran to be a strong, regional hegemon.
(Note that I state "what's best for the Middle East." That means the ENTIRE Middle East -- and not just Israel. Sorry, AIPAC.)
92
You use the word "better." I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Israel and Egypt have been trying their best to exceed Saudi Arabian perfidy.
How many votes of all of the human beings under their dominion did the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel receive?
How many ethnic Arabs, Persians, Kurds, Turks and Europeans are there in the Middle East?
How many sectarian Islamist Sunni and Shia Muslims and crusading evangelist Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Christians and Zionist Orthodox, Conservative and Reformed Jews are there in the Middle East?
How much military aid and sales has America made or given to Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia?
How many votes of all of the human beings under their dominion did the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel receive?
How many ethnic Arabs, Persians, Kurds, Turks and Europeans are there in the Middle East?
How many sectarian Islamist Sunni and Shia Muslims and crusading evangelist Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Christians and Zionist Orthodox, Conservative and Reformed Jews are there in the Middle East?
How much military aid and sales has America made or given to Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia?
Kudos to the NY Times reader who names the source of this quotation:
"you have to go back to another time when the world was powered by the black fuel and the deserts sprouted great cities of pipe and steel. Gone now, swept away. For reasons long forgotten, two mighty warrior tribes went to war and touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel they were nothing. They'd built a house of straw."
How on earth does anyone in leadership in the US, China, or Russia not see this as a slow-motion world war that could take a quarter of the world's oil out of circulation? If we do not stop the creeping escalation in this region, it won't stop at Yemen's borders.
"you have to go back to another time when the world was powered by the black fuel and the deserts sprouted great cities of pipe and steel. Gone now, swept away. For reasons long forgotten, two mighty warrior tribes went to war and touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel they were nothing. They'd built a house of straw."
How on earth does anyone in leadership in the US, China, or Russia not see this as a slow-motion world war that could take a quarter of the world's oil out of circulation? If we do not stop the creeping escalation in this region, it won't stop at Yemen's borders.
8
Mad Max , thank you. However, don't agree this is a slow motion world war. I believe it is a regional religious civil war with ancient roots which may not stop at Yemen's borders but will stay in the region.
6
Opening narration from Mad Max 2 - The Road Warrior.
1
Mike & Dee, I'd agree with you, that it's a regional religious civil war, etc, but I think it will have repercussions globally because of the economic importance of oil.
Therefore, it has the potential to evolve into some kind of global war, at least an economic struggle.
Therefore, it has the potential to evolve into some kind of global war, at least an economic struggle.
1
There are no good actors, Saudis or Iran, in this theater. Let them fight and finish each other. We should just stay out of the mess in the Middle-East.
24
So let me get this right. It's OK for the US and Saudis to side with a faction in Yemen, but woe be it if Iran supports its allies there. The double standard is nauseating. The side Iran is supporting is also fighting al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia is responsible for the formation of al Qaeda as well as its ongoing financial support. Oh, 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis as well as most of the foreign fighters in Iraq during our occupation. We have gone crazy.
111
Dan, get your history and facts right. Al Qaeda was initially formed to fight and overthrow the Saudi government. That was their original target (along with the Egyptian govt., the Gulf Arab states, and any Arab leader who was viewed as too accommodating to the West).
And you seem to be unaware (or to ignore) the fact that it was Iran that armed, trained and supplied Shiite militias in Iraq, that killed hundreds of US troops, in their efforts to pave the way for a sectarian Shiite government in Iraq beholden to Teheran.
You also seem to be unaware that the "allies" Iran is supporting in Yemen happen to be on the border with Saudi Arabia (and far removed from the border with Iran) and enemies of the Saudis, and that it was Iran's meddling that provoked the Saudi involvement, not the other way around.
And you seem to be unaware (or to ignore) the fact that it was Iran that armed, trained and supplied Shiite militias in Iraq, that killed hundreds of US troops, in their efforts to pave the way for a sectarian Shiite government in Iraq beholden to Teheran.
You also seem to be unaware that the "allies" Iran is supporting in Yemen happen to be on the border with Saudi Arabia (and far removed from the border with Iran) and enemies of the Saudis, and that it was Iran's meddling that provoked the Saudi involvement, not the other way around.
Another Sunni - Shia battle with proxy governments - Saudi , US for the Sunnis and Iran for the Shias - helping their respective sides. Really, a civil war in Yeman with outside powers intervening. The whole middle eastern mess started with the invasion of Saddam's Iraq in 2003 and continues to this day. The only sense these wars make is over who controls the massive amount of oil in the region and Irsrael's need to regime change hostile Arab countries by using the U.S. as its occupying force- ( this was the case in Saddam's iraq where the Neo cons claimed that the road to peace in the Middle East was through Baghdad. ) Best US response is to get out of the area, it's a quagmire.
15
You seem to have forgotten the Ayatollah, Black Septembet, and other '70s terrorists!
The shrill rhetoric out of Iran indicates a growing sense of panic. Wars have unintended consequences. The Iranians are now exposed as regional troublemakers (as if that was not known). It is amazing to watch the US attempt to remain engaged on the nuclear issue while the rest of the ME disintegrates due to Iranian war mongering. The Iranians will never reap the benefits of their aggression unless we enable them as we did in Iraq and Syria. If cornered they could resort to further aggression in the Arabian Peninsula. Top off your gas tank!
5
The US should stay out of this fight. Period
50
It is rich of the United States to accuse Iran of aiding a side in the Yemeni conflict when it is doing precisely the same.
65
Well, that is par for the course for the US Government. They are doing the exact same thing in Syria and Ukraine.
4
If President Obama doesn't watch out, he's gonna be the last man left in Washington who really approves of the nuclear deal. Even Secretary Kerry appears to be having doubts about Iran.
5
So Mr. Kerry has the chutzpah to say that "Washington will not stand by while the region is destabilized"! What planet has he been on for the last decade and a half? I can hear the roars of laughter all the way from Tehran. After Bush/Cheney kicking over a hornet's nest in Iraq only to be followed by the Obama/Clinton red lines in Syria, the fiasco in Libya, & the rise of ISIS... (just to name a few of our State Dept. gems).......well, you get the picture. It will be a miracle if the entire Region does not end up in a huge cloud of smoke before Washington is done with it's handiwork!
72
Simply stated, Iran is seeking to influence the entire region including Syria, Gaza, and Yemen. Saudi Arabia is seeking to defend itself from a bordering threat. The answer is simple. Iran is wrong for supporting two wars and a Palestinian insurrection in Gaza. Iran is a trouble maker. Saudi Arabia is completely correct for defending itself against aggression. It really is that simple.
6
The problem in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia supporting terrorism (9/11, ISIS) and Israel being Israel.
Between Saudi Arabia, Netanyahu's armed-to-the-teeth-with-400-nukes Israel, and Iran, Iran is the sober adult in the room.
Between Saudi Arabia, Netanyahu's armed-to-the-teeth-with-400-nukes Israel, and Iran, Iran is the sober adult in the room.
71
I agree with what you assert about Iran, but you must also acknowlege that Al Qaeda sprung from Saudi (Wahhabi) soil. Bin Laden - Saudi. 9/11 hijackers - Saudis. If the Saudis hadn't wanted Ansar al-Sharia to take hold in Yemen, it wouldn't have happened. We have found ourselves between the Scylla and Charybdis in the Middle East. We haven't a clue what we're doing there. We're completely outmatched because we do not understand the players - same problem we had in Vietnam. You would think Kerry, of all people, would get that. On top of everything else, as evidenced by a seemingly endless string of foreign policy blunders (most especially the premature troupe draw-down in Iraq) we have a President who is desperate for a "win" - any win - for the sake of his legacy. But how much of a win will a nuclear Iran really be... What a mess.
1
But for Saudi Arabia there would be no global spread of radical Islam (Wahhabism,) no al Qaeda, no Talaban, no ISIS, no 9/11, etc. Need more be said? Yet, we are allies with Saudi Arabia. Why? Follow the money. When something doesn't make sense, look for the vested interests. Our political leaders have been brought with Saudi money.
6
Reading this, one cannot help but wonder about current US foreign policy in the Middle East. There are a lot of balls in the air at the moment. And the lifting of sanctions against Iran may control its nuclear ambitions, but may empower them in other respects. Caution is certainly required. A June 30 deadline for the nuclear negotiations may not be a good idea.
4
The Saudi regime is acting with brazen and callous indifference to what will come. The Iranians are not being coy. The Yemeni's should not be forced to suffer between the two sides.
The U.N should offer to negotiate a peaceful way out, and if they all refuse to go that route they should have the war they are asking for.
The U.N should offer to negotiate a peaceful way out, and if they all refuse to go that route they should have the war they are asking for.
10
I deeply pity any UN peacekeepers that would venture into that cauldron; they wouldn't stand a chance of being effective and would be in constant danger of kidnapping, torture and death.
6
That would be nice, but there is no peace treaty that can end Yemen's war because the roots are not theological (as is commonly portrayed in the media) but ecological. This is an overpopulated country that is running out of water. It relies on groundwater that is rapidly dwindling and half the water withdrawn is used to grow a drug, khat. If, decades ago, the leaders of Yemen had gotten serious about solving the country's problems, they could have made a dent in them. They could have educated the girls and provided contraception and regulated the groundwater and curtailed the production of khat and developed an actual economy. But Saleh only cared about enriching himself, as have the other leaders of Yemen. The Republic of Yemen is collapsing under its own weight. This would have happened even without the foreign interference, and there is practically nothing the outside world can do except provide humanitarian assistance and help get refugees resettled in safe places.
15
Then, the UN would be in a better, more workable position to offer assistance in finding a solution to natural resource problems rather than theological questions.
Why aren't they?
Why aren't they?
The Sunni / Shiite schism is the greatest threat to global peace. 1350 years in the making, this religious war will spill over beyond the confines of the arabian penisula. Containment is critical. I suggest ceding Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon to Iran. This will limit the bloodshed to areas that are for all intents and purposes useless to american geopolitical interests. In return, the sunnis countries absorb many refugees including Palestinians and recognize Israel as a regional ally. Arm the sunnis with american weapons including 24 / 7 subs that can be tasked for first strike nuclear retaliation within moments of Iran stepping out of bounds.
1
In the run-up to the Iraq war a few, far too few, wise old heads warned that a war in Iraq could spread to a conflagration in the entire Middle East, but their
voices were drowned out by the fantasies of neo-cons. Well, the conflagration is here now. The dying, miserable innocents in the Middle East are no doubt applauding for the neo-cons vision for democracy. They've paid quite a price for the Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Krauthammer, Perle, Kagan and all the others delusion. Now the same happy group want us to elect another Bush. Whoopee!
voices were drowned out by the fantasies of neo-cons. Well, the conflagration is here now. The dying, miserable innocents in the Middle East are no doubt applauding for the neo-cons vision for democracy. They've paid quite a price for the Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Krauthammer, Perle, Kagan and all the others delusion. Now the same happy group want us to elect another Bush. Whoopee!
51
The Saudis have high powered American planes but their bombing so far seems indiscriminate. From what I've been able to discern the Houthis may be extreme by our view but they're not crazy and they may well have support among the people. And they're virulently anti Al Qaeda! I fear we are supporting the wrong side in the conflict.
42
The Houthi's believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. & Israel to make Muslim's look bad and give the West and excuse to go to war with Islam. They ARE crazy. There is no right side. The Houthi's are equal to Al Quaeda in every way. Two sides of the same coin. We shouldn't support either side. This is a fratricidal religious war.
3
During the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s the Iranians relied on the Israelis for spare parts. It now seems possible that the Saudis may come to rely on the Israelis for spare parts as well. It isn't misery but politics that allows nations to become acquainted with strange bedfellows.
2
Israel relied on the US for spare parts. Israel was a front for the US to play both sides in the Iran/Iraq War. Those were US parts going to Iran.
2
That would be the Iran-Contra affair, a real brainy strategy Obama is accused of not having, which of course is a compliment.
1
These counterpoints may be turned to plowshares rather than swords. Let us proceed.
1
if Iran is restricted from helping one side (the Houthis) in what is essentially a civil war, why is America supporting the Saudis in picking a side and allowing it to bomb the opposition while warning Iran to stay out of it? America's strategy in the middle east has been less than sterling and should itself stay out of it..
Neither side should be supported in interfering in Yemen's affairs. Let Yemenis settle it
Neither side should be supported in interfering in Yemen's affairs. Let Yemenis settle it
38
Strategy is defined by Miriam Webster as, a careful plan or method for achieving a particular goal usually over a long period of time. It is quite clear that we don't have a strategy in the Middle East and we haven't had one since Richard M. Nixon left the White House, or if not then, than at the latest when Henry Kissinger stopped being Secretary of State. What we have had is aimless blundering. Right now it is at its worst.
4
I'm not clear that the Yemenis are really doing this in the first place. Iran has been a (Persian) imperial power with empire-envy for perhaps 3,000 years, and they are proudly not Arabs. Arabians have a culture that goes back equally as long, but not as famously. These two proto-nationstates have been at odds long before the Sunni-Shiite schism. The boundaries set by the British and French after World War I were entirely artificial, and it remains to be seen whether or not the world is going to have to be stuck with them. And now in the 21st century, multinational fracking might make the mideast somewhat less essential to the industrial world. Nobody's got clean hands here.
2
We have not had "aimless blundering." We have had foreign policy driven by domestic politics, the main driver being money from the likes of Sheldon Adelson and AIPAC.
8
1-Iran have never tried to support islamic extremists groups. 2-We made a deal with 5 1 and Iranian people never ever want to have a neuclear weapon and we will surely do what we promised.
Most people here pray for peace every single day but we are not afraid of KSA and if we are involved in a war, we will win. I bet
Pray for peace