The Saudi and UAE despots along with a militant Israel colluded to derail the democratic promise of the Arab Spring including coups and large scale massacres of pro democracy protestors. They also helped launch a coup and attack against Turkey and Qatar for supporting reform in the region. A key part of this plan was to get the Trump Administration and Putin together via the Seychelles meeting to exchange Russian control over Ukraine in exchange for abandoning Iran. Withdrawing from the JCPOA and starving Iran so it would be forced to lash out triggering a broader war leading to its fragmentation was the final strategic goal using ofcourse American blood and treasure like in the 2003 Iraq war. It is time that these three malevolent client states be put in their place.
9
Don’t rely on fickleness
1
When the Nazis invaded their European neighbors, there was no uncertainty or ambiguity about who the perpetrator was. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, there was no mystery about who dropped the bombs.
Now we all need to take a breath until it is conclusive about who actually sent those explosive drones to the Saudi oil refineries.
Once that is clearly determined - beyond conjecture (or wishful thinking) - appropriate action can be taken.
I very much appreciate that we are not jumping the gun here.
War is a huge, serious and costly way to go on every level imaginable.
Even if in fact Iran supplied those missiles to the Yemenis, do we really hold Iran responsible for them being sent into Saudi Arabia?
Can you imagine if the U.S. was held accountable for every worldwide act of harm and destruction caused by weaponry that was manufactured by U.S. arms manufacturers???
America is not weak, and being thorough and cautious in an unclear situation such as this is a true act of strength, not weakness.
8
let the kingdom defend themselves they have plenty of money or finance a war. providing that Iran is unwilling to corporate.
8
The fact that Trump and Pompeo are not ready to start a middle east conflagration on behalf of the Saudis is good news, not bad news.
I didn't think there was any evil thing they'd hesitate to do, but apparently this one is at least causing them to pause before they jump over the cliff.
Meanwhile, people should study up on history. All the west's actions have been flawed, corrupted by oil and so-called alliances.
Trump and his bffs the world's dictators are a recruiting station for terrorists.
If we help people, they love us. If we leave them without homes, sewage, and infrastructure, it is not surprising they'd rather we left them alone, even with brutal strongmen.
Adding US money and arms to conflicts are a great way to enhance corruption, genocide (Yemen), and hatred. Forming alliances with despicable leaders is bound to, and has already, backfire.
7
For many observers the apparent U.S. hesitancy to an overt military riposte in this case is before all an implicit recognition of its own accountability after Trump ill-minded retreat from the JCPOA signed in Vienna on July 14, 2015, which is what created the grounds of whole present crisis. Perhaps U.S. should be now mulling a request for an open call intended to an arrangements with Iran.
7
It's understandable for Americans to say they're no longer interested in Mideast wars. But no one can run away from the incredible military implications of this attack. In a stroke, tens of billions of dollars' worth of air defense systems from Korea to Israel have been rendered useless. Militaries around the world have invested their budgets in anti missile systems aimed at high trajectory objects. But you can't shoot down ground skimming projectiles. It's a profound moment in warfare. The amazing thing is that the new capabilities weren't revealed years ago, but there hasn't been a war involving major missile exchanges since 1991. And back then they were Second World War era Scuds and we laughed at them. We've become addicted to the idea that missiles are for show but carriers and aircraft win the day. So not the case. The world changed this week. Nothing we thought about military superiority applies anymore.
7
I can't help thinking what Hillary Clinton's response would be if she were our commander-in-chief now. I'm no fan of Trump, but if it helps us get through this last year or so without a war, let's give him credit when he does the right thing and shows restraint, even if it means nurturing his insatiable ego.
7
@Ted Thomas
Doubt that she would be in bed with the Saudis the way Trump is. She would also not tossed out the Iran deal.
9
I a trying to understand how sending yet more American troops into the Middle East to die in never ending conflict is going to help.
At least Obama charted a course for peace. During his term, things seems to subside, Osama bin Laden was killed, and Iran went from burning effigies of the United States to actually sitting down with us and allowing inspections. Only a fool thinks "bomb and blast" is better than "negotiations and treaties."
11
Looking at our Secretary of State sitting, smiling, with one of the biggest criminals on the planet makes me wish I was born a lesser animal.
10
They have enough money and ammunition in the Middle East to fight their own wars. We need to disengage from getting involved in other countries' battles and deal with our own, military and civil issues. Furthermore, after Khashoggi's murder, there is no reason at all to believe anything the Saudis say. They found Iranian hardware? Well, let them deal with Iran!!! I say "we're done"!
18
Those pieces of a missile or drone look kind of big to me after exploding inside a huge oil refinery. I see a few crushed tomato puree cans. How about a big glass bottle marked "Iranian Missile Dust". I thought we made Cruise Missiles. Did we sell a cache of them to Iran?
2
@rjay Cruise missile technology is 1960's-1970's at the oldest. It is not hard to build.
1
@rjay The ones displayed were apparently ones that fell short of their targets.
Once the world had a pact good for Iran and everyone else - save the radical House of Saud.
President Obama’s deal kept Iran from building an atomic bomb but sell oil, and kept it out of regional fighting.
Everyone was happy except for the Saudi monarchy.
The leaders of the two nations hate each other: The Saudi are radical Sunni, the Iranian dictators radical Shia - the split al-Islam over who should succeed Mohammed. Iranians are Persian, not Arab, pointless,like the rest of the world’s bigotry, for more than 2,000 years.
Note: the US has been for more than 6 years an oil/gas EXPORTING country, and can do without fuel from either.
The US has been Saudi Arabia’s mercenaries since the Iranians dumped the US-backed Shah, one if our largest arms customers.
The revolt led to a vile theocracy, and the holding if US diplomats hostage - a situation that remains an insane point of anger in Trumpanista America.
“The US should have wiped Iran off the face of the earth,” for ignoring the US “giving us a black eye” I listened to some say recently.
Never mind that 400 or so of the millions killed would have been US hostages.
Too young to remember Viet Nam, they blame Iran for wrecking the US as the unbeatable bully of the planet, cops of the world.
Saudis can murder a US newsman - but Iran should burn, they cry. And never mind the suspect end of the “hostage crisis” when Reagan took office.
We can base our planes on carriers. We don’t need more of the mess Trump made killing the treaty.
4
Seeing US presidents manufacture unnecessary wars in the Middle East to supposedly "defend" some of the richest countries on the planet in order to generate capital by selling weapons is getting tiring.
Anyone who claims Israel has too much influence on US politics should try opening their eyes to Saudi Arabia: they're missing the forest through the trees.
4
How would going to war with Iran solve anything...just like those who criticized Obama for not taking action in Syria ...these critics never acknowledge that you create a whole new set of problems. Learn from our mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan ..
7
I would think that in times of crisis, we would all be Americans. So you do not like Donald Trump? Who does? Times like these politics and goading should be put aside. We are not dickering and debating policy decisions, we are talking about a military strike where civilians will certainly die. Calling Our/Your president a coward is not appropriate. IF you are a decent American you back your country in times of crisis. A cruise missile strike against any of our allies is a strike against America just as significant as 9/11. If your son or daughter was working at Aramco and died because if the missile strike, it would be 9/11 for you personally. Our response to this bully may dictate the next few pages in world history. Lets show what it means to be an American.
@Mark
As a Korean War veteran, Ilike most of your thoughts. However, this was not a strike against a non- belligerent. The Saudis are at war with Yemen and indirectly with Iran. In war the rules change. If Iran can be shown to be the country of origin for the weapons launch, I would expect a consortium of oil importing nations to reply to Iran in an appropriate way and not necessarily with the aid of the United States.
3
They didn’t attack America.
3
What I do not understand is, why doesn't mbs hire eric price and a few Isreli security firms to build the kingdom of saud an army. I know it sounds absurd but it is doable. Eric knows where to get men who will work for treasure and the Isrelis will make a deal for security. Then the saudis can go around mucking it up and making a mess. They can go and think that they will have their Agincourt. The kingdoms implication that we "The American military and the american public" is a hireable attack dog because the sauds have oil in their ground is distasteful and insulting. Why do I get the idea that we are on the wrong side here. We should be standing against mbs, ask Indonisia to be the protectorate of Mecca and drive the house of saud back to the sand. I don't think supercars run on sand...
4
You have the least credible administration in U.S. history telling us Iran did a bad thing to the regime of Mohammed Bone Saw. And that we need to go to war with a country that is not going to be a pushover. Color me skeptical.
10
Trump has no understanding of the bigger picture, this is way beyond his depth.
3
“Not a big threat to Saudi Arabia”, huh. Maybe you shouldn’t have started it.
It's déjà vu all over again...
1
Seems the NYTimes, and the rest of the MSM are in lockstep with the “Official Narrative”......Iran did it.
Interesting the we had those American, UK, and other warships sitting in the Persian Gulf that all those drones had to fly over from Iran to Saudi Arabia? Why weren’t the drones shot down and shouldn’t there be tracking as evidence? What about undoctored satellite images
10
How ironic that on a day of Worldwide protests about Global Warming - the U.S.A. is (once again) making the World safe for Big Oil.
Looking at the quality of the cast of characters is grim. I wouldn't buy a used car from Saudi's Crown Prince, yet, he is on the receiving end of U.S. dollars and guns, BIG time.
How many greedy despots can you fit into the Oval Office ?
Hurry, 2020.
5
The US largely stayed out of the Iran-Iraq War.
The US should stay out of any Iran-Saudi War.
Let the Saudi's spill 100% of their OWN blood, treasure and oil.
13
@Louis Anthes Let's get it straight. The saudis won't be spilling their own blood. The blood spilled will be by a mercenary force they hire. When is the last time you have seen a saudi do anything other than calculate their stipend?
8
@Louis Anthes the US was supplying Saddam Hussein in the same the Saudis are being supplied now. Even turning a blind eye when Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran.
4
@Louis Anthes the US stayed out of the Iran-Iraq war? Washington sent billions to Iraq and Rumsfeld showed up in Baghdad to shake Saddam Hussein's hands. US also helped Iran. It allowed Israel to sell weapons to Tehran. It played on both sides of the war.
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/26/world/us-secretly-gave-aid-to-iraq-early-in-its-war-against-iran.html
4
Further demonstration of the need for the US to wean itself off oil it cannot produce locally and to expand the use of alternative fuels could not be presented better.
And, btw, the Sunni/Shia dispute has been going on for a thousand years. It is their fight, not ours.
2
@HapinOregon The USA is a net exporter of oil with the North Dakota oil fields coming online. Any spike above $75 makes the oil exploration affordable. That is the pressure point that the saudis are under. They start a war and the price spikes, then the USA brings more fields into production. What's that? I don't hear the conversation about peak oil anymore...
2
@DB
If the US is a next exporter why was Trump making noise about opening Strategic Petroleum Reserve?
because his supporters drive trucks that get 10 miles per gallon with the big tires.
1
part of the problem with this whole mess is that even if we manage to elect someone competent in the next presidential election, the iranians are going to be very reticent to come back to the negotiating table. any progress will likely take a long time- under the best of circumstances.
5
After the world's acquiescence to Saddaam Hussein's chemical attacks on Iran, it's leaders adopted a strategy that gave it multiple deterrent capabilities . It implemented the plan over decades at great cost in cash and manpower, especially given its resource base and social needs. It appears our stable genius didn't expect Iran to counterpunch. We are about a 2 in a scale of 10 in the amount of pain that Iran is capable of inflicting on the Saudis, Gulf States, US troops and Israelis. MBS was eager to send his plane to Istanbul with the bone saw team but hasn't sent any of his high priced bombers over the skies of Teheran in the last week. Trump's threats and bluster have been shown to be pure political theater. Trump's Fox News version of the world has shown to have huge gaps and deficiencies when confronting a much more complex world with independent actors with their own domestic audiences. Unless he is giving away the store, it makes little sense for any adversarial counterparts to to a deal with
Trump between now and the 2020 election.
3
Since the 1920's we have been jumping through Saudi hoops in order to a secure cheap source of oil and capital. If ever a tail was wagging the dog, it is our "relationship" with the Saudi monarchy. It's long past the time to dock that tail before we are drawn into a war brought about by a local power struggle.
5
This should be able to resolve the slight squabble that started in 632... of course the event in 680 is a bit more recent..... we should send in Jared he has done an amazing job with that other middle east thing, of course it is more recent 1948, if you discount the 400 years. It seems to me, people who forget their history are doomed to repeat it, while people who continue to live the history are just doomed.
The specter of gasoline prices going up has suddenly contemplating war with Iran. Five years of actual carnage in Yemen—much of it resulting from weapons stamped “Made In America”—has not engendered even a passing interest as to likely consequences!
What does that say about US!
3
It seems like Yemen is well within reason to retaliate in the most violent way possible given the Saudis with our help has crated a humanitarian crisis by bombing relentlessly. And if they turn to Iran to help, more power to them. We are wrong. We are in their backyard, we are the evil empire in this case. We should leave and offer reparations. to the Yemenese.
2
Trump isn't going to do anything. He's ultimately a coward, but in this case, that will serve America's best interests.
Saudi Arabia (Arabs) and Iran (Persians) have been rivals for 1,000 years. They in a constant struggle for power and influence in that region. It makes no sense to even get involved.
The United States is a net exporter of fossil fuels. We need to keep working on renewable energy, fuel efficiency, and new technologies, so we can decouple ourselves as much as possible from that entire region.
4
Today, President Clinton indicated she was waiting for the Saudi crown prince to provide guidance for a US response...and republicans would...
10
@JRB recall she is also the main architect behind the disaster that Libya has become. She doesn’t get a pass either.
2
Scratch a bully and you will often find a coward. We're seeing that now, as Trump and his Pence /Pompeo God Squad stare down the barrel of a country that knows how to and is prepared to fight an all out war. Think Iran is also bluffing? Raise and call them, Donny Tiny Hands.
The other thing of note in the comments here is how many Americans now have little interest in the defense of the vile medieval kingdoms and principalities of the Iranian (Persian) Gulf. My what a difference a couple decades and the "wrong" President make!
10
@Matt No. Iran's provocations are meant to raise the price of oil to cause pain to the US and its allies financially in response to the sanctions. Their provocations haven't gotten anyone killed. Launching missiles in a counter-strike at Iran raises the price of oil way more than these incidents, accomplishing the very thing Iran wants. This is way more complicated than you think.
@Matt
Most of the commenters are liberals and a self selected population therefore hardly representative of Americans.
1
@Not 99pct The pressure isn't to be on the USA. If the price of oil spikes beyond $75 more oil fields will come online in North Dakota and when tensions are eased the glut in the market will affect, Wait for it... Saudi Arabia and the stipends they pay to their citizens. That is the endgame here. It is to destabilize the Saudi middle class because the money is starting to go flat and a class system will turn on itself. That is the long game the Iranians are playing. There is no going back, it's now a matter of time. But we are talking 10 years vs 30 years. And Yemen only speeds it up.
1
The Saudis can buy American weapons. Other than that, it should be their problem to defend their country. Defending any nation that oppresses the majority of its citizens (women and religious minorities) is wrong, even when their enemy is just as bad.
9
@Lawyermom
So we should abandon our commitments to defend NATO b/c they can make their own weapons?
@james. An illegitimate comparison.
1
Sorry. After 9 11 the Saudis lost any possible support from the US. Any drone attacks on the oil fields and refineries should have come from US after one hour warning which was more than the Towers or airplane victims got. Fighting FOR Saudi Arabia ? What next, sharing nuclear technology with North Korea ?
21
What a chummy little meeting MBS and Sec. Pompeo seem to have had. Lots of smiles and chuckles.
I wonder if the topic of dismemberment via bone saw ever came up?
20
Nah. Only the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Yemen. It was all smiles and high-fives.
2
Would the editors be kind enough to correct the typo in the title of this article? The U.S. has a longstanding interest, paid in American blood and treasure, in defending Gulf oil shipments, not the Gulf.
And, Iran is not testing 'American commitment' to the region.
Iran is simply putting its boot on the oil pipeline, so to speak, to remind Trump that they can hurt America economically, as he attempts to strangle their economy with increasingly draconian sanctions, after unilaterally breaking our solemn commitment to allies to follow the Iran agreement. All so that Trump could posture to his political base.
17
@Neander ... " solemn commitment "? Really? The agreement with Iran is merely an agreement between contemporary leaders at the time. The " agreement " does not have the " solemn " status of a " treaty ", because Obama never submitted it to the Senate for constitutional ratification. He was fully aware that it, the " agreement ", would fail in the Senate due to it's flaws.
1
As I wrote, the commitment was to our global allies. The world's nation's forged this agreement to ensure Iran would not move forward with building nuclear weapons, which they have resumed, thanks entirely to Trump abandoning our global agreement.
1
It was not a legitimate reason to sever the agreement, but even the Obama administration knew the Iranians weren’t abiding by it. There are no innocent governments in that region.
2
Once again the New York Times beats the drums for war in the Middle East. One would think you would learn from your mistakes. The entire article takes as a given that Iran was behind the strike on Saudi oil facilities. Well, if you thought the Iraq war was a catastrophe, which it was for everyone except the defense industry, wait until this war starts. All the Saudi oil infrastructure is likely to be destroyed, along with much of Iran, and who will be the winner then? In the meantime, enjoy your war planning games and imperial fantasies. But this is predictable. As the crazies who run this would-be empire lose their grip on power, they will resort to more and more desperate actions to cling to it.
26
Seems we read two different articles. I read the one that says the country that jails and tortures bloggers for blogging and murders journalists in other countries decided to spend a ton of money on defense systems that didn’t defend them and, gee, isn’t that a shame.
A signed paper guarantee from anything controlled by Trump is not worth the same amount of Tm. Charmin ultra soft.
Stop with the allies nonsense. These are client states. The relationship is more like dope dealer and junkie. When we fully embrace green we can then lose this habit.
18
Between well armed Saudi Arabia and even better armed Israel (all with most advanced US weapons) can join each other to 'punish' Iran, whose goal is hegemony of all ME countries. Let THEM take their chances, not the US, the so called policeman of the world, using hard earned tax payer dollars!
However, remember, Iran is backed by and supported by Putin and Xi JinPing and some by North Korea.
8
And people wonder why Iran feels like it NEEDS nuclear weapons? They have a clear defense justification for them and it is why the program is supported by the Iranian people, even those who really do not like their government. Yes they threaten their neighbors but they are also under threat by those same neighbors.
2
If this sickens you, end Republican misrule by voting Democrat in every election. Nothing else will make any difference.
10
@Richard Schumacher
Sorry, the Democrats are not any better when it comes to foreign policy in the Middle East. The only candidate with the courage to speak out about our war policies was Tulsi Gabbard and she was strangely eliminated from the debates by the Democratic Party
3
@Richard Schumacher Yeah because you know, Clinton, Pelosi and Obama did wonders for our middle class... And I think Detroit and Flint Michigan vote blue also.
1
@DB: You've convinced me. I'll never vote for Clinton, Pelosi, or Obama again.
/s
Are our Saudi “friends” gaming us? Why are we committed to defending a medieval monarchy that is dangerous to other countries (including us) and an abomination to its own people? At this point, do we even truly know their refinery was sabotaged by outsiders, and not blown up by their own Al Quida internal opponents or even that they did it themselves? The Saudis want higher oil prices and they want us to take out their longtime religious enemy, Iran. Why should we, at our own expense, help them achieve their aims? They are rich and we have troubles of our own.
15
@Pottree Well, said. We kiss their feet, dance to their sword play and look the other way at the grotesque murders, and then agree to fight their wars. What's wrong with this picture?
10
@a.r. jones
Please don't say "we" - we know all too well who fits your description: it's HE.
The Middle East produced roughly 30 million barrels of crude day per day. The US imports around 1.5 to 2 million of its crude from the Middle East. The remaining 28 millions barrels are sold to countries such as China, India, Japan France etc...
Why should the US be the one responsible for protecting the oil flow when it only buys less than 7% of the crude coming from that region? While should the US tax payers be responsible for protecting China, Japan oil shipments while these countries use their tax payers money to build high speed trains and modern airports while Americans have to deal with second class airports such as Newark or Amtrak trains that looks more like trains from the 1960s?
Second, I hear that The Gulf states have spent $400 billion in the US in the last 40 years. The US has wasted between Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan more than $7 trillion and 5000 lives in the last 20 years alone.
The Islamic terrorists who have attacked the West and the US are all Sunni Muslims, who have been indoctrinated by Saudi style Islam. The Madrassas that have trained those terrorists and the Taliban killing US soldiers in Afghanistan are funded by US allies such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other Gulf states.
Most of those countries don't share any value with the US. They treat their female citizens as third class citizens.
So what is the US protecting these countries? Why should a US soldier die fighting for Saudi Arabia or any of these countries?
22
I've been reading all of these comments heaping nothing but criticism on Saudi Arabia and came to an interesting conclusion. A majority of the bloggers are enablers of Saudi Arabia. Every time you pull your automobile into a service station to gas it up you're really putting money into the pockets of the Saudi royal family. I doubt if any one of you is willing to give up your car anytime soon. I don't have a car in the interest of full disclosure.
2
There are now a lot of electric-powered vehicles (not only cars) on the streets. There are also many US cities which have public transpotation, and more that need it. And finally, the US should also stop drilling
for and pumping oil
2
@sharon5101
I assume you use products made of, or packaged in, plastic? Plastic comes from oil, so you're in just as deep as anyone else. Don't be so high and mighty.
1
My questions is: how many American lives are too many when it comes to defending the monetary interests of the rich and powerful?
8
Trump breaks every promise he’s ever made. Let’s hope this promise of defending the Middle East gets broken also. No more of Americas blood and treasure lost to a portion of the world that HATES us. Let us not forget that Saudi Arabia spawned the 9/11 hijackers.
11
Corrupt, assassinating Saudi Arabia should take care of themselves. We need to end our reliance on oil and any shady alliances we have with them.
10
I think the best way to protect Saudi Arabia is to take it over in a very friendly, fraternal manner, and administer it by a civilian elected by Americans in the short term, and by Saudi citizens and residents in the near term. The administrator would be tasked with producing publicly traded oil-related assets, with each Saudi citizen and resident getting an equal share.
We have precedent: Panama.
I have nothing against the royal family. Turns out, they are all swell fellas. It is hardly their fault if American legislators, think tanks, policy institutes are highly corruptible. Why would they not, because every zip code allows it, place a mosque and madrassa in the US, and have their own clerics preach jihadi subversion. It was Americans who were arguing for a mosque overlooking the WTC - financed by the Saudis, so that they could forever gloat over the blow they dealt. It is not them, it is us.
Hence, the 10,000 plus princes and such can take their money, and go where they wish - safely. They just will no longer own any assets in SA, nor enjoy any power.
Where do they go? To countries that have no scruples about taking ill gotten wealth (e.g., Switzerland), and Europe that loves the royals.
But a family owning a country, now expecting Americans to die to keep them rich, is well beyond the pale.
5
We need a national plebiscite on the US's relations with Saudi Arabia. I am so tired of being told the US is a bad ally because we only act on most of the whims of an oppressive dictatorship that actively supports terrorism. Saudi Arabia is perpetrating one of the world's worst humanitarian disasters in Yemen. Saudi Arabian women are property. Religious and sexual minorities can receive the death penalty simply for existing. We don't need to even discuss 9/11. Saudi Arabia is an enemy of the United States in every way besides the fact that they buy weapons and sell oil.
If they want to attack Iran, let them; we've sold them more than enough weapons to defend themselves, as they've shown Yemen. Let's seize the momentary oil trade disruptions and transition away from oil. Let's see how many wars they need and how oppressed their people are when their sugar daddy is all out of sugar.
14
They can thank Bush J,r for this. The lying up to the Iraq war and its catastrophic consequences has left the notion of another war in the region toxic, even for the Republicans!
Talk about bad Karma!
6
It is hardly surprising that the Houthi government in Yemen should seek to attack the Saudi facilities in retaliation for years of murder and famine imposed on them by Saudis with the aid of the US. Please!
8
How many young American lives is this administration prepared to sacrifice in defense of Saudi oil fields?
2
Contrary to this NYT headline, I was not aware of a US "Guarantee" (or "Vow" in the print edition's front page) to defend the Gulf. In 1990-91, we committed to defend Kuwait from Iraq, and perhaps we are committed to freedom of the seas at the Straits of Hormuz and elsewhere in the world, but I had not heard that we had joined a NATO-like pact with Saudi Arabia.
Where does the NYT get its front-page information?
6
Don’t worry about a conventional war, open your eyes to the real threat of a global nuclear holocaust and the end of 7.7 billion humans on earth.
On Sept. 24, 1996, the United States and the world's other major nuclear powers signed a treaty to end all testing and development of nuclear weapons. Do you believe all nations having nuclear capabilities are being good boys and girls?
Man will self destruct whether by global warming climate or a global nuclear holocaust. May God protect us from our selves.
I've heard of the ultimate "doomsday bomb". Humans use most of their resources for their preoccupation with destruction, and that has impeded man's ability to cure diseases such as Alzheimer's, Ebola, Polio, Lupus Erythematosus, Influenza, Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, Diabetes, HIV/AIDS, Asthma, Cancer, and the common cold.
2
Trump broke the nuclear treaty with Iran, and this is the catastrophic result of his management that affects the economy and contributes to the global conflict and recession📉📉📉🥺🥺🥺
8
What commitment did we ever make to protect Saudi Arabia and UAE? Every step we've ever taken in the region has been to protect our own perceived interests. We have no defense treaty that I am aware of to protect them. Maybe our own interests may change over time? Anyway, if they get the idea that we're not going to war for them, that might be a good thing.
9
We've all had enough of Saudi Arabia, but we keep making cars that get 30 mpg instead of 70, showering the kingdom with money every time we visit the gas station.
Until we completely revamp our oil-soaked economy, this will continue to repeat itself ad-nauseum.
The Green New Deal isn't a joke. It's the giant lifeboat on a Titanic.
9
@Erik
Yes, cars and trucks are the biggest source of pollution. I recently did a highway roadside pickup - by far the most junk was disintegrated truck tires, too much to pick up.
2
@Erik It's great that we are going to help a country that killed 3,000 people on US soil.
5
Robert Gates got it right when he said “ Saudi Arabia want to fight Iran to last American soldier.”
This is not America’s fight, never mind the perpetual war we are in in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Chinese would love to see us send our soldiers into Iran.
And there is no will for a carbon tax to make the move to renewables.
11
I think the simple answer to this riddle is for the Saudis to negotiate a peace agreement with Yemeni rebels.
8
What exactly is our commitment to defend Saudi Arabia? Do they have a corresponding commitment to defend themselves?
9
Saudia Arabia and the Gulf State are capable of forming one entity very quickly and easily capable of adding more Arab countries to challenge any Iranian threats. The needed warheads to suppress and topple the Iranian regime is in stock and enough of it. Washington will not allow anything like that to happen and we respect that.
We need the Green New Deal so we can stop being dependent on the Middle East for oil and fighting useless wars that gain nothing and cost American taxpayers trillions that could be used in this country.
6
Saudi Arabia is dear to the hearts of President Trump's buddies in the oil business -- the same buddies who would like to destroy California's ability to set higher emission standards than Detroit's gas-guzzlers can meet. Do we see a kind of pattern here?
7
"the promise of protection by the United States military,"
What promise, EXACTLY? We have no such formal agreement.
Saudi Arabia has no reason to NOT defend itself. They bought arms from us for just such a reason. They did NOT buy American blood for their oil.
No blood for oil!
10
Trump is doing a very convincing imitation of Neville Chamberlain. The enemy keeps escalating, with attacks on our vulnerable allies, and we...talk.
A Saudi military with the ability to defend the nation at a moments notice has the ability to overthrow the government.
Therefore infidel mercenaries are preferable. And necessary.
7
Didn’t Trump brag about how the Saudis are a very prolific buyer of weapons from the U.S.?
Once upon a time, the Saudis were the largest exporters of terrorism, and now we’re defending them aka their oil? Something doesn’t smell right here. Follow the money.
10
Not going to war is quite possibly the only thing on which I agree with Trump.
10
We have no idea how to fix the middle East and should stay out of it. We have been king makers by giving them very advanced weapons and backing them up. They should fix their own problems and their relationship with their neighbors including Iseral.
7
Yesterday the NYTimes and readers did not want the US involved in any way after this attack. It was deemed between Saudi and Iran. Today, after the lack of action yesterday, the NYTimes implies the US is deserting the region and it's promise post Kuwait war.
Today, Trump announced more sanctions.
Will tomorrow's headline be "US acts alone against Iran and threatens peace in the region?"
Sorry, but just being anti-Trump does not solve the problem. And the problem seems ill defined other than an attack on Saudi oil which threatens global economies. Or doesn't?
2
Why can't Saudi Arabia defend itself??
They've bought billions of dollars worth of cutting edge military equipment from the U.S. including some of the latest American fighter jets in production.
The real answer may be that if they sit back and "allow" the U.S. to do the fighting against Iran for them, the long-predicted Sunni-Shi'a war may be settled without shedding a drop of Saudi blood. "Let the infidels die for us and we can pick up the pieces."
9
“Now an Arab Gulf strategic partner has been massively attacked by Iran — which was provoked by Trump, not by us — and we hear Americans saying to us, you need to defend yourselves!”
This quote reflects the ultimate betrayal and damage to American credibility. Good luck selling them weapons!
@Kam Eftekhar
Along with Israel and UAE, they wanted the JCPOA to be cancelled and a war launched by the US
1
We should be glad that Trump demonstrates some hesitancy about actually using military power. It was W's headlong dash into war -- or should I say, wars -- that got us mired into Afghanistan and Iraq with such devastating consequences for lives and our economy. Trump, for whom I have overall very limited regard, is probably doing this one right, folks. So let's give him a little credit. By what justification should American lives and treasure be put at the service of a medieval kingdom that gave us virtually all the 9/11 hijackers, when the USA is now one of the largest oil producers in the world and we actually now export oil.
8
@amoss3
Credit for getting you into a mess that leaves you"to choose between an unwise escalation or a humiliating climb-down.” ?
The "energy independence" means you are ruining your lands and was either way a process that started under GWB.
3
Seems Qatar got it right. Tiny little Kuwaiti, UAE , and Saudi Arabia are scared to death now , they should be , these countries-are rich in targets for Iran to destroy. Saudi Arabia has a fairly large Shiite minority population.
10
Bottom line: We need the Green New Deal. It's humane and does not focus on the production and marketing of weapons and oil. America and its BRIC partners must replace oil with the best global technological advancements. We can do that starting in January 2021.
12
@John Kominitsky
It's true that nuclear power would greatly lessen our dependence on fossil fuels, but aren't Green New Dealers opposed to it?
@Hu McCulloch--I'm not sure about that. What I do know is Nukes are expensive to build. Private utilities cannot take the risk as ROI is way out in the future. Perhaps, the Nuke industry can design and produce safe, reliable 'drop-in units that will be more economically acceptable. However, I would oppose Nukes in our current deregulation arena of Trump. People over Profit is what our future needs. Clean energy technology is truly cost-effective as it does not own a replenishment cost factor and is highly scalable to small, isolated locations. It is a gift to pump water for much of humanity efficiently. A single light bulb can become a wonder.
Saudi Arabia purchases weapons from the west - including the USA - to defend itself. They are in full control of their sovereignty and can and should stand on their own feet and defend themselves.
20
@Zigzag
Problem for them is the country is an artificial construct. No one in the military apparently feels it's something worth risking one's skin for.
3
Does our promise covering Saudi Arabia's defense cover their provoking Iran and Yemen? I would hope not.
8
If we fail to be true to our promise of defending Saudi Arabia, our allies like South Korea, Philippine, Taiwan, Japan, NATO, and others would be wondering how committed we are. Moment of truth is here, and does Donald Trump get anything beside his twitter account? The price is steep when we make defense treaty or promises, otherwise it is just empty blusters.
A few thoughts: the population of Iran is over 80 million, Saudi Arabia’s is about 33 million; over 30% of Saudi Arabia’s population is foreign born vs only about 2.5% of Iran’s, in other words almost all real work in Saudi Arabia is done by foreigners; in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in the mistaken belief that his quest would be a cake walk as Iran was in chaos following its Islamic revolution of 1979. Instead he ran into fierce resistance with Iranians running in human waves without weapons into Iraqi fire. In the end that invasion was a complete failure. With this in mind, Saudi Arabia is no match for Iran. And the US would be foolish to get entangled with a foe that is infinitely more able to defend itself than Iraq was during the US invasion of 2003
24
@JBW Finally, someone who recalls history and understands relative geopolitical power.
6
The Saudi Arabian regime is an extreme outlier in its illiberality. Essentially no features of modern democratic states can be found in this theocratic kingdom. Women and minorities face extreme oppression; beyond the “oil economy” there is no modern economic development; “education” beyond indoctrination into an extreme brand of Wahabi Islam is not available to the average Saudi Arabian; women are chaperoned, guarded, covered, treated like property by their fathers, brothers and husbands and only recently the government ban on their driving was banned. One could go on and on. Suffice to say that Saudi Arabia is a far more repressive regime than many of the American government’s official enemies: Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Cuba, etc where the American government routinely engages in sanctions resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands and threatens or actually uses military force to kill thousands more.
The reality is that the Saudi Arabian regime, like most of the gulf oil state kingdoms, are simply puppet regimes of the United States, propped up for decades by the United States. The deal throughout has been simple: your regime is propped up by the American government, in return you will sell oil in dollars to maintain the US dollar as reserve currency of the world and also you will use some of your reserves to purchase American made munitions to prop up the military industrial complex (Boeing, Raytheon, et al..). Iran used to accept that deal under the Shah.
13
Nice friendly headline for the administration and the Saudi's. It implies that the United States is absolutely responsible for defending Saudi Arabia's oil which we are not. We've already defended the gulf by selling the Saudi's billions of dollars worth of weapons for war at a discount. Responsibility met.
If there is such an agreement with a prince who kills people and has them dismembered we need to get out of it toot sweet.
23
I love your “toot sweet” at the end!
1
Trump and the Art of the Deal laid bare as unmitigated hype. Time to finally wise up America.
Saudi Arabia verses Iran — the dominant regional existential threat that until now was played out in the war in Yemen creating the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet.
Trump’s impulsive, grandstanding abrogation of the Iran nuclear agreement and the escalating imposition of draconian US sanctions on Iran absent any credible effort to negotiate an alternative is a self-inflicted disaster.
Trump’s alpha imperative is his image and at some point in the current dynamic his braggadocio, bullying, and idle threats will back him into a corner that he can not let stand. The result will be Middle East regional conflagration with American military draw in to another un-winnable conflict.
6
Do we have a signed mutual defense treaty with Saudi Arabia or is the agreement informal. If informal, is it a recent Trump concoction or a unwritten agreement that goes back decades.
We don't need Saudi Oil why aren't India, and china guaranteeing Saudi Arabia mos of its oil goes to east and south Asia. Why are we the bully boys of the planet Saudi Arabia in not important to the American people. Let this be everyone else's problem.
For the record Mr Trump with California standards we woul be even less reliant of foreign oil. I think most Americans, maybe not not Texas oil moguls, would think domestic energy security is worth a few hundred dollars extra on a car. A fee that would pay for itself with cheaper and less gas purchases. Mr Trump why are Texas Billionaires more important than national energy security.
This dishonest disloyal corporate stooge will drag Americans into a war 99.99% of Americans do not want in a country whose government 99.8% of Americans do not like or respect.
5
I take issue with the very premise of the article. Is there an actual guarantee by the US to "Defend Gulf"? And, if there is, what does the US guarantee? Free passage of ships through the Persian Gulf, or the protection of autocratic, non-elected rulers and their immense wealth?
I am asking because these "allies" are strange bedfellows indeed, even with the whole thing about them being often brutal autocrats and hostile to American values aside. To the best of my knowledge, not even one of these very wealthy Emirates, kingdoms and sheikdoms such as Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Quatar and Kuwait, has offered some form of contribution to defray the great costs to American taxpayers to keep US troops and fleets in that area. This despite the fact that we, the US, have an enormous budget deficit, and they have enormous surpluses and hundreds of billions of dollars stacked away. So, maybe the US should help guarantee free passage of ships in the international waters in the Gulf, but certainly not alone, and definitely with some form of cost-sharing with the ultra-rich countries there that benefit from this. And that should be the extent of American involvement down there.
17
All very true.
I guess they keep our defense industry busy churning out the latest hardware. They have the money to spend.
But they don't seem too keen to use any of it.
6
@Kimbo. Yes, although I wouldn't call it "our" defense industry. I don't own Lockheed, Boeing or Raytheon, not am I a richly compensated executive of any of these - both are true for most people in this country. So, how much benefit do we, as a country, derive from those arms purchases, and how do these benefits compare to the costs of having American troops and ships down there?
6
Before going to a fight, it is wise to measure the strengths of your opponent. Iran is no pushover unlike Iraq. It probably is strong military wise than what Vietnam was. Not one American soldier's life should be lost trying to protect Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is no angel country nor is its prince.
The only responsibility for US is to defend its people and we have no responsibility to defend any other country.
11
The cushions of the arm chairs they sit in will need refurbishment after supporting those two for so long, and they need to ditch the green flag and gold accoutrements. Where do they think they are? Baylor U.?
3
Quote from an old movie, Lawrence of Arabia, but accurate.
"Sherif Ali, so long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people, greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are."
Today the Arabs are still fighting tribe against tribe, only now the tribes call themselves nations. To this continual Arab infighting has been added fighting with the Persians and an equivocal relationship with the Turks. Beginning in the 1950's the United States began sticking its long nose into the fighting, by supporting one group over another. We were the friends of the Iranians and their Shah and then they kicked us out in 1979, because we had been interfering with their politics since at least 1953 when our CIA orchestrated the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran. Small wonder they hate us.
The fighting there is still tribal, only now the 'real' issue is which group of Islam each country belongs to. Most are Sunni and the rest are Shiite. We don't have a dog in that fight and we had better get clear before the Muslims come to blows again. When the Iraqis fought the Iranians 1,000,000 Iranians died and perhaps 500,000 Iraqis. In all of WWII the USA suffered only 402,000 deaths and our country is much larger than Iran and Iraq added together. We need to let them fight their own fights and stop selling massive amounts of weapons to anyone in the Middle East.
They are a perfect example why national religions are a bad idea.
12
@Joel Friedlander The irony of your quote is that Mohammed DID unite the tribes, and created a great state. That the Sunnis and Shias are pitted against each other, still fighting and arguing over which is the rightful heir to the Prophet is pathetic, and this is NOT our fight, in any way. These people should go back to Mohammed's words, not listen to current arbitrary reinterpretations. But that, of course, makes too much sense. "Religion" is not about making sense.
3
@Joel Friedlander- Iranians are Persians. Persians are not Arabs and have not been Arabs for their thousands of years of history. If you do not think that's an important detail, please don't use movie quotes to explain world affairs.
2
Wonderful analysis.... wish I could copy it for posting
1
This quote is absurd “It is enormous,” said Gregory Gause, a scholar of the region at Texas A&M University. “This is the most serious challenge since the invasion of Kuwait to the status of the United States as a great power that would protect the free flow of energy from the region...” We have no commitment to free flow of energy. We have no problem cutting off Iran’s oil from flowing to the world market. We are only care about the gulf states because US based oil companies make money there.
10
And may I point out another angle - US’s largest military base in gulf is in Qatar which is not on friendliest terms with Saudi Arabia because of the Gulf Crisis. Add to it the fact that it doesn’t mind relations with Iran.
And now add to the fact that they carry immense lobbying in the UK and the US (thanks to their sovereign fund’s money everywhere)
Qatar will most definitely not let its territory be used for launching any attacks in Iran. Even UAE, an adversary of Iran doesn’t want to do so as it risks an open invitation of attacks from the neighboring borders of Iran.
If US enters this quagmire, it is on it own with Saudi Arabia and that will spell disaster.
9
@Jagdeer Haleed Actually that is fortuitous for the US, as Iran will be reluctant to launch attacks on Qatari territory. Kind of a safe house for the US fleet. Pentagon smarter than the Executive.
Defending the Gulf should include defending Yemen - instead, Washington gives the Saudis bombs that eventually kill Yemeni civilians.
The headline should have read, defending US business interests in the Gulf.
7
If the bloggers are so angry at our dependence on fossil fuel then how come they're not rushing out to buy electric cars?
This paper has criticized Trump harshly for his threats to use military force, repeatedly.
Now he hesitates to do so, and is criticized for his military reticence.
I get it. Whatever Trump does, or doesn't -- he's wrong.
I dislike this sham president as much as anybody, but don't become the anti-Fox. The NYTimes has a long and honored history. Don't ruin it.
5
@Austin Liberal The NYT reports the words and actions of Trump and his administration. If those words and actions contradict themselves minute by minute that is not the fault of the reporting.
1
What a crew, MBS and Pompeo, lacking only Bibi and El Sisi to round out our BFF in the Middle East. If fighting, funding and dying for this bunch is what Americans are expected to do, I like Trumps idea, “ you want our protection we want half your oil”, at least Americans might get something out of the deal. Having said that we should let them work out their own problems, they have been fighting for literally thousands of years, the only difference now is we are selling them weapons to make killing each other in volume much easier. Let’s ignore and condemn the murderers pushing for war with Iran and join the millions around the world seeking peace and a solution to a real existential threat, climate change.
5
I am discouraged by yet another story that normalizes anything coming out of the egomaniac Trump’s group of incompetent men. Their reaction is not connected to any reason, guidance, wisdom or history of our involvement in the Middle East, let alone anything based in reality. Here’s the news flash - Trump is mentally unhinged, yet the beat goes on as if these changing world events are the story. Unless the media addresses his lack of mental stability and being unfit for office, I fear that the latest story regarding this slow free fall we are in as a nation will finally be about our demise. Please get some nerve and call it like it is - he’s mentally compromised and in need of a thorough mental health examination, including a drug screen. My guess? Stimulant addiction with narcissistic personality disorder. God help us.
2
What a difference a few years make! In the first Gulf War that liberated Kuwait from Saddam Hussain's forces, the Saudis, Emiratis and other Arab countries contributed to offset the cost of deploying American forces to the Gulf. Now, the same countries are simply demanding that the US has to protect them, and demand we attack Iran. Why should we, or would we? It seems that Trump, the self-styled great deal maker, is far worse at this than the first President Bush. As Trump would tweet: Weak. Sad. Pathetic.
3
One thing that should be pointed out is that any vacuum created by a departure, real or imagined, of the US from its defense guarantees is the likely development of an increased military posture in the region from Russia and China.
The Chinese especially have more to lose as the result of any significant disruption in oil supplies. It would not be hard to imagine China ramping its blue water naval assets with related preparedness if the US chooses to back away from the role it has played for many years.
A stunningly disturbing photograph.
3
Wait a darn minute! We have to go to war with Iran to support Saudi Arabia because we "promised" to protect the region and we must honor our commitments?
Saudi Arabia: the country that played a role in the 9-11 terrorist attacks and where 15 of the 19 terrorists were Saudi citizens. And then there is the not-at-all- charming Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is associated with the brutal murder of a Washington Post Iranian journalist? Or is going to war with Iran to protect Saudi Arabia a Trump family affair and a display of loyalty to the Prince for future investments?
Actually, with Trump as President, America's word with regard to treaties and commitments now means nothing. Trump already broke a huge US promise by pulling out o the Iran Nuclear deal. He walked out of the Paris Accords (signed by 183 nations and the EU) to deal with climate change, started a trade-tariff war with China, and sides with Putin and Kim Jong un over our long-time European allies….
The entire Trump administration should be put on hold and not allowed to make any deals or go to war until we get to the bottom of Trump's taxes, what the Mueller Report told us to pursue related to Trump's 2016 campaign, and all the Trump people subpoenaed by House committees honor their legal "commitment" and testify truthfully, and we find out what this ibtelligence whistleblower was blowing the whistle about with regard to Trump.
21
The bottom line is that another Middle Eastern war really is too costly for everyone involved. President Trump is right to avoid such a war and MBS is also. While this gives Iran freedom to carry out such attacks without fear of massive retribution, it can't be overlooked that US sanctions and Saudi military action in Yemen have pushed Iran into a corner, which leads them to attempt desperate measures. At the beginning of the Trump administration we were still in a conversational phase with Iran after their agreement to a nuclear deal and our lessening of sanctions in return. They were fighting a proxy war with Saudi Arabia in Yemen, but they were not as aggressive as they are now. The US bears some responsibility for the present situation. We need to rethink our strategy and focus on the result we want, not our reputation. We want no war, we want no Iranian nuclear weapons and we want less Iranian interference in other countries of the region by their support of groups such as Hezbollah and the Houthis. The first two are more important than the last one and so we need to keep our eyes on the priority. Trump should stop blustering and actually talk to Rouhani, which might accomplish something and would strengthen Rouhani's hand in his contest with the militant Revolutionary Guard in his own country. Sanctions are not a good bargaining tool if you aren't bargaining and are only talking at each other from a distance.
4
How did we get to this place, trump cancelled our agreement negotiated along with our allies with Iran. Now trump is suffering the consequences.
6
Why should _we_ defend Saudi Arabia militarily? They are an extremely wealthy country and can afford their own military one would think.....
6
Trump mocked Iran a few weeks ago when they conducted a missile test and it failed to launch. Who’s laughing now?
2
The united (if covert) front against a common adversary by an unlikely troika --- Saudi Arabia, Israel, and US --- couldn't quite get its act together before their not quite fully-hatched, joint-undertaking was overtaken by an (even more) unlikely drone strike whose initiator left no return address.
Cornered and its-back-to-the-wall from sanctions which prevent the sale of its oil, Iran loosed a dress rehearsal for more scorched-earth: "If we can't sell our crude, then SA can't sell its crude either!"
Will unflappable neocons who took us to Baghdad in March, 2003, also spur our current C-I-C to match his bellicose antic disposition with war-like deeds today in Tehran?
4
Don't go anywhere alone!
What do we get in return for that "promise of protection"?
A country that is part of a cartel that squeezes us for as much money as possible by maintaining oil prices as high as possible.
Who is getting the best out this relationship? The nickname for America in Saudi Arabia is Suckers. (by the way, I am not a Trump supporter).
5
For all their vicious conniving and lying, the Bush family adventures in the Middle East provided a benchmark for what TrumpCo faces now. Either Bush had more foreign policy experience in their little finger than Trump's whole cabinet, and both Bushes failed to tame Iraq (on the contrary--succeeded in destabilizing the Middle East even further), a small potatoes theater compared to Iran. Trump knows he doesn't have a clue how to proceed with a conflict, and that starting one will doom his presidency straight up. The low-hanging and bitter fruit is for him to lift sanctions and start talking with Iran. That's the only way out of his box.
9
I can't imagine spilling American blood to support monarchies of the Persian Gulf.
7
Let the Saudi's defend themselves! Over the past 3-4 decades we sold them tens of billions of dollars worth of advanced military equipment, planes; tanks; bombs etc. Let them use it. I suspect that much of this equipment is wasted and never used or used against helpless parties.
6
Its clear from the lead photo that they can't afford to fight on their own. So the crown prince call his mercenaries (USA) to pay (with lives and $) for his war.
3
I do not want to see one single American harmed defending the Saudi's...If they are our ally, who needs enemies?
After 9/11, we should have learned the most valuable lesson of all. We cannot bargain away who we claim to be for car fuel. The consequences of that kind of corruption enabled the terrorism of radicals to grow and flourish.
This President backed himself into a corner with Iran and should be wise enough to learn from that mistake. The world should not suffer from his ignorance and refusal to accept certain realities....We have a long, questionable history in our dealings with Iran. We can try to fix that or we can continue to create more problems.
Saudi's have a responsibility to protect their own oil production......They have hardly proven themselves worthy of another war for oil. But, it is their war to fight and not our job to fix their lousy security.
I feel like I am watching some kind of teenage manhood ritual being played out in DC. And those boys don't look manly, they just look like slow learners.
9
The Sunni rulers of Saudi Arabia are basically ISIS style gangsters, adorned with rings studded with immense diamonds, who happen to be riding in Rolls Royce limousines, instead of Toyota pickup trucks.
There is absolutely no good to be had, by taking sides between them, and their equally evil Shia counterparts in Iran, in a fight that has been going on for a millennium.
7
How many American lives should be lost to defend a regime who strangled and dismembered a journalist because he dared to speak out against their abusive system? Is their oil so important to us that we must give up every shred of humanity to defend them?
We should, instead be racing to build a petroleum-free infrastructure here in the US--thereby cutting off the need to kneel to a murderous, socially backward kingdom.
4
"Attack on Saudi Oil Facilities Tests U.S. Guarantee to Defend Gulf"
The Gulf? What does that mean? Who? Qatar? Kuwait? UAE? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Iraq? Oman? Bahrain
Mr. Kirkpatrick and Mr. Hubbard, don't you mean "Attack on Saudi Oil Facilities Tests U.S. Special Interests in the Gulf"
6
I wonder if Trump's tax returns would show why he's so supportive of Saudi Arabia...
3
Having a comments section to stories blunts the force of the paper to beat the drums of war as the readers can push back to counter the institutional narrative and have their voice heard.
I think if there was a comment section in 2003 when the NYT pushed this country into war, there would have been significant pushback and people would be energized that their anti-war views were more widespread than they imagined.
4
On the day of World Climate strike, and in light of the bombing of these oil installations, I'm left with only one comment:
Solar. Now.
#sevengenerations
3
Defending a ruthless repressive kingdom with our military might is bound to bite us in the end.
2
Why are we selling all those armaments to the Saudi's if not for self defense?
4
"Attack on Saudi Oil Facilities Tests U.S. Guarantee to Defend Gulf"
No.
Attack on Saudi Oil Facilities Tests President Trump's Guarantee to Defend Gulf
By the way, why can't the evil House of Saud use the weapons they buy from us to defend themselves?
Are they cowards?
7
There Is No Doubt That Iran Probably Needs To Be Taught Some Restraint, But Nobody Should Cry Over The Saudis getting bombed. The Wealth Salt Monarchs Of Saudi Arabia Is Showing That They Are Willing To Kill Journalists, Execute Their Own Citizens, And Blatantly Deny People Human Rights, Especially Their Own Citizens. Let's Quit Coddling The Princes
4
Where is the USA flag on Pompeo's side of the table? Appears our great and trusted allies the Saudis forgot in this photo op?
On the other hand Pompeo is a joke which the Saudis realize so no reason to advertise whom he represents.
2
May embolden Iran? Are you suggesting we start another war “protecting” interests of the nation directly or indirectly complicit in the attacks on the United States on 9.11 ? Nice one
3
New Rule: Any Congressman who supports sending troops to fight on behalf of Saudi Arabia must send a son, daughter, sibling or spouse along with the first wave.
6
With American Democrats and the E.U. fully behind Iran, their climb to the top of the pile in the Middle East just got a lot easier. Hopefully they won’t let us down.
NYT: I am seriously disappointed by the perspective of this reporting. You are telling us that the US should go to war, else risk our reputation for going to war for oil. That's a perfect trigger for Trump's inclination to bully others.
Enough! Defending Saudi interests in selling oil, ignoring Khashoggi's murder by Saudi goons, ignoring the Saudi base for the 9-11 attacks; unilaterally withdrawing from the nuclear agreement with Iran, imposing severe sanctions on Iran...
No more wars for oil.
5
Any commitment the United States makes to any parties in the Middle East or the Persian Gulf should be to encourage stability among those parties. We did not create their disagreements, and but for the presence of vast pools of oil used for fuel, their quarrels would be of little moment to the Western world. Even so, it is long past time that the developed world recognizes that fossil fuels are no less anachronistic than the quarrels themselves. There is a difference between studying history in order to avoid the mistakes of the past, and studying it to recreate them. The future of humanity and the planet rests on understanding that difference.
6
The real problem has been lost sight of -- it is a nuclear Iran. It gets closer every day and we should use the time to build international support during these relatively minor incidents.
1
@solohoh
Regarding the nuclear thing, America, with Thump as president, is the most DANGEROUS nation in the world.
If Iran had a few Nuclear Bombs and a reliable means of lobbing them over 9 time-zones, Thump would not be making such bombastic statements as "LOCKED & LOADED".
This whole Iran thing is getting more absurd by the day. The US made Iran into what it is today when they toppled a freely elected leader and replaced him with a US friendly dictator back in '53.The Iranian people have exactly zero reason to trust the American government. Then toss in these ridiculous sanctions which are starving the Iranian people. Corner even a mouse, it's going to stand up and fight you.
That aside, who made the US the world's watchdog. Let the Saudis take care of themselves. Let them understand that if they want to shove someone around, they might just shove back. The American taxpayer has gifted them with enough firepower. Maybe they need to learn how to use it.
12
This is why the global climate strikes should be the NYT lead story today, not Saudi Arabia. The sooner we transition away from oil, the sooner we can stop handwringing over whether to spend American money and lives defending monarchies that murder journalists and classify women as one step above chattel.
17
To see Mike Pompeo sitting there all smiley with MBS ( THE bone saw killer ) who we have not held accountable in any way , is sickening.
16
Nice picture of Pompeo smiling sweetly at murderer MBS. With friends like these, who needs enemies?
18
"Mr. Trump has not ruled out a military strike, ..."
Yawn. The attack is already old news, and Trump seemed to think making us the biggest and toughest military power ever, and he alone has done that because the budget was about $12 billion and we were only designing news crossbows before he got elected, would mean that no one would dare test us.
From this to trade wars to health care to ... he is too afraid and too ignorant to actually take the risk of making ONE hard decision and sticking with it, beyond getting rid of everything Obama did.
5
I fully realize that Iran is a bad actor in many ways in the Middle East, but it's essentially acting in what it believes to be in its self interest--until it can be convinced that it's in its self interest to stop. All that aside, I would ask what have the people running around in shmates, the Saudis and Gulf Arabs, contributed to the world, and what can they contribute to the world? Nothing other than oil. The Iranians are a highly educated and highly cultured people with a long and proud history. And it seems to me that they could potentially contribute more to science, medicine, the arts than the shmate folks. Seems to me we picked the wrong side on this one, though I certainly don't have a rose colored view of Iran. We and the world would benefit more from trying to build a bridge to them than from protecting the Saudis, a bunch of losers who won't amount to much of anything on the world stage.
6
Seems to me that if an ultra-rich country cannot even try to defend itself then it doesn’t deserve any help from us. This is especially true considering it seems to only pick on weak opponents like Yemen and murder/dismember defenseless journalists. I’m no fan of Iran but at least it has morals and it didn’t kill any of our embassy personnel which it held for over a year.
8
The United States of America has no obligation to defend the sadistic Saudi monarchy. We have no treaty. They are not part of NATO. They attacked us in force on 9-11. With allies like them, who needs enemies?
10
The headline is "Attack on Saudi Oil Facilities Tests U.S. Guarantee to Defend Gulf"
What guarantee? When the US puts a base in a foreign country, it isn't a commitment to defend the country against all comers, or to defend a geographic area of "Gulf".
The Saudis, if feeling betrayed, should read the fine print of the treaty that doesn't exist.
How did the US get into the position that the medieval kingdom selling us oil at inflated prices thinks it has a security guarantee while NATO is being told more or less openly that the US will breach its committements to the mutual defense?
8
Why should we fight the Saudi/Sunni/Wahhabist war against Iran and the Shi'a? Considering that the Saudi government has funded Wahhabist clerics and mosques that preach a radical anti-western, war against everyone who isn't a Wahhabist message; funds Al Qaeda, Taliban, as well as ISIS and other radical Wahhabist based groups around the planet, why should we fight their war for them? Because they don't want to get their hands dirty or put their lives at risk when the Americans will do it for them?
11
If MBS is good at cutting a journalist in pieces or bombing school bus in Yemen, we should let this "brave man" defend himself.
No single American life should be lost in helping MBS.
13
This is what happens when you're addicted to oil.
9
Man, the framing of this story tells you everything you need to know about the Times’s POV when it comes to American foreign policy. Not entering into a misbegotten war with Iran is a potential sign of weakness. I’ve been reading this paper for decades now, and it literally has never seen a potential American war it didn’t support.
5
What good is a guarantee if the guarantor cannot make good on it? The strongest military in the world, 'locked and loaded', did not protect us from Sept. 11th or the battle of Mogadishu or the bombing of the Marine HQ in Beirut.
How can we even pretend to guarantee the Saudis against Iran? Yeah, we have the nukes and Shock and Awe. How well did those work in Vietnam or Iraq? There are 33MM people in Saudi, but a third are immigrants, mostly workers. The area is vast, but military and economic targets are few and easy to hit by surprize.
But what has Iran got? 90MM people. Lots of mountains. Some high tech weapons. But most of all, they are the northeast side of the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz. 35% of the world's seaborne oil passes through it even with Iran's production severely limited by sanctions, ant the area has the world's largest known oil reserves. At Hormuz the entire width is in artillery range from either shore along its 60 miles, but the deep channel used by tankers is only about two miles wide. A turkey shoot for both anti-ship missiles and artillery.
An oft-forgotten principle of diplomacy is Never Start a War You Cannot Win.
9
That guy in the robes photographed with smiling U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, he had a Washington Post journalist tortured, murdered and hacked to pieces. Pompeo is fully aware of that fact. The photo reveals the completely amoral, transactional nature of the Trump regime. Last month Trump was photographed next to an infant who lost both parents to a mass shooting in El Paso days before. Trump is displaying a beaming smile and thumbs up gesture. Last year at a televised news conference, Trump openly sided with murderous former KGB agent Putin over the entire U.S. Intelligence establishment on Russian meddling in the American election. Trump is currently attacking California and four major auto makers because they want to make cars MORE efficient, while Trump insists it's better if the cars are LESS efficient.
These are a handful of examples pulled from a brimming list. North Korea, China, "great progress" on the apparently invisible wall, Charlottesville, needless government shutdown, revolving door staff turnovers, obstruction of justice, refusal to cooperate with Congress, emoluments, nepotism, endless lies...
Yet Trump maintains a steady 42% approval rating and a total lock on Republican voters. Republican politicians are paralyzed by fear of this failed developer and pretend TV businessman. The U.S.A., earth's lone superpower, has become an evil empire. Americans still think they are John Wayne. The truth is, they are Darth Vader.
17
How many people remember Colin Powell swearing that the USA had incontrovertible proof that Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction only to discover after the invasion that there were none, zero, nada. Now the same people are telling us Iran attacked Saudi Arabia. Excuse me if I'm skeptical. Saudi Arabia is a absolute totalitarian monarchy which is largely run based on sharia law. Iran is a Islamic democracy which has regular competitive elections between multiple political parties. Half the people in Saudi Arabia are denied citizenship and have no rights. Half of the citizens, women, have essentially no civil rights. An unchaperoned date can get you the death penalty. If we are going to overthrow a government in the Middle East, maybe we should start with Saudi Arabia.
6
what is this promise to protect Saudia Arabia noted in the article? I think the NY Times is great but don't you think more explication is warranted? I don't see such a promise noted anywhere. I don't believe this is an explicit promise pursuant to a treaty.
6
The usual premise for pressuring Iran and trying to control them, is the threat they pose to Israel. Strange - they attacked Saudi Arabia. Could it be that the "threat to Israel" justification used over and over in the past to condone attacks - both direct and passive on Iran - was a bit of a canard?
Saudi Arabia is fighting a skirmish in Yemen and so I guess they're reticent about fighting on a second front. I understand that. Why not quit operations in Yemen? If they wish to fight Iran, they should do it directly and not by destroying the people in a third nation.
You reap what you sow. Prior to the US backing out of the Nuclear treaty - even though France, Germany and other players decried it as folly - the region wasn't as volatile. I guess that Congress and the Senate might have been a bit too passive when trump decided on this foolish quest. Perhaps folks should have spoken up a bit more. Perhaps when trump said that the deal was 'the worst ever' journalists should have pressed him for some specifics about what he meant. Perhaps they also could have asked what they game plan was and how it might play out.
That's what happens when you sit passively back and let a fool thrash your country. But hey, "just go out and vote in 2020". Funny.
4
Many comments here have a clever perspective,
have a lot of insight, and I frankly congratulate
those readers. That is one of the main reason why I subscribe to the NYT, perhaps the main reason.
5
What is the premise of this article? Not once the article mentions the Yemeni Houthis (“backed by Iran”), who took the responsibility for the attack on a Saudi Aramco plant in Abqaiq. Saudi Arabia has been bombing and killing innocent Yemeni citizens and Houthis since the Saudi Prince (who ordered the killing of Kashoggi) took control of the kingdom. If an American ally attacks another country then the other country can attack the United States? That seems to be the logic here. We have no proof of Iran attacking the oil refineries and they are denying it. This plain and simple war mongering and needs to stop.
10
If you're worried that not bombing a nation we've been tormenting for 40years might "embolden" it, you've clearly bought into a failed worldview of American exceptionalism.
And if you have even the slightest understanding of reality, you know, without doubt, that starting another war in the Gulf would be utterly disastrous.
10
It appears many don’t really understand the relationship with Saudi Arabia and I blame the media for not properly exposing it (let’s see if you even post this). Oil producers such as Saudi Arabia demand payment in US dollars only. Look at the major oil producing countries who have sought to change that and you find places with “regime change”. The holdouts are Iran - Venezuela - Russia. That’s where the tension exists between the three as well. Let’s call it what it really is.
How is it that in a “free society” most people don’t know it. The American people have decide what type of society to be. Does the dollar rule over all or not? Is financial dominance the most important thing or not? The truth sets people free.
4
Most reasonable Americans would agree that the Saudis are not deserving of any aid. However, we should keep in mind that if the US does not guarantee to defend them, and given Israel has atomic weapons and Iran is seeking, the Saudis are likely to go nuclear. In other words, it's complicated...
1
Time to think outside the box.
What happens, realistically, if we step away from the conflict and let Saudi Arabia and Iran duke it out by themselves?
A lot of people will get hurt or killed along the way, and oil is not the only issue: cultural and religious factors play a role. But that's the case whether we get involved or not, and has been for many years now. No one really thinks the US sold so much military hardware to Saudi Arabia because we are protecting Wahhabi religious values.
Regardless of the political outcome, the oil isn't going to go away. After re-arrangement of governments or borders or control of resources, whoever is in control will come looking for buyers again. We can make friends again then.
Right now, nobody over there is our friend. Maybe with good reasons, eh?
3
the saudis and their allies are using american and british planes, piloted by u.s. and british trained pilots, using u.s. and british refueling and targeting support. The Saudis appear to be supplying the warm bodies to fly the planes.
NYT, where in the Constitution is this "U.S. Guarantee to Defend (the) Gulf"? I must have an outdated copy as mine only allows Congress to provide for the defense of the United States.
8
If we would get on with it and convert our energy system to Sustainable Resources, we wouldn't need to rely on Saudi Arabia and petroleum and natural gas. And those countries that have been dragging their feet to make this conversion will feel the embrace of the murderer who presides over a Kingdom and not a republic.
8
Why do we have to "defend the gulf"? Isn't that the job of the international community?
Let the Iranians and Saudis settle their own mess. Buy oil from whomever wins.
The Saudis are not our friends.
19
All the oil-rich nations in the Middle East are going to have to get used to not being of strategic importance to anyone but themselves as the first half of this century moves along.
What's under their ground is going to be less and less relevant as transportation swings into full electrification - with battery or fuel-cell vehicles powered by electricity, or as vehicles still burn fuel, but fuels created rather than extracted.
So their extraction revenues will be dropping away while they also have to deal with changes in climate and loss of worldwide influence. Other fossil fuel exporting nations will find the same adjustments painful, too. Good time for them to start working on new sources of income.
5
The "PATRIOT" air defense system was sleeping with Iran's cruise missiles. The United States cannot offer reliable protection against Iranian cruise missiles. Russia is very likely to sell air defense systems to Saudi Arabia that can deter cruise missiles (proven in Syria). This situation raises the question. How secure are US military bases and ships in the event of a war with Iran? Or rather. How many would be the American casualties in the event of a response to Iran as a result of a US military attack? Can the US afford such a military adventure that will certainly not have the desired end?
4
@ASD. Isn’t it interesting that Syria and Lebanon have been able to shoot down drones and missiles but the Saudis couldn’t.... makes you wonder doesn’t it..?
3
Imagine what the US would do under the same pressure from economic sanction? Unbelievable Pompeo talking strategy with the murderous bone saw MBS as if business as usual, what a scandal, what a sham. I wonder what the Saudis would look like if they weren't born into oil?
That really tipped the balance of the world, and greed on all sides just couldn't resist and pretty much lead to where we are today. What next?
20
If you have to agree with comments about who said the U.S. would defend the Royal Saudi Family. Saudi Arabia is controlled by small Muslim sect with support from those that believe in Wabbihism. They were directly involved in the 9/11 attack on the U.S. Trump and his stoolie, Mike Pompeo, are trying to get more money out of these terrorists. It's all about Trump making money. Let the entire region blow themselves up. Let's not care about them. We all need to move beyond the Middle East and Trump.
17
I HOPE I have misinterpreted this article. Are its authors goading Trump into starting World War Three?
Is it OUR job to "defend" the Gulf? "Emboldening Iran"?
WHAT?
32
@Robiin M. Blind
i had the same feeling
5
@Robin M. Blind Yes Robin before you were born and while you were growing up the US pledged to defend the Gulf. History is great stuff.
Persian Gulf nations such as Saudi Arabia, along with the Netanyahu/Likud Government in Israel, have abused the "U.S. Guarantee to Defend" them.
If the purpose of the "guarantee" to the Gulf was to keep the oil extraction and distribution flowing, perhaps the U.S. should have had a far more sophisticated policy that didn't result in crippling both the Iraq and Iran oil production these past decades. Instead it put all our eggs into the Saudi/Kuwaiti baskets.
How did Saudi Arabia repay the U.S.? Giving birth to Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda certainly didn't help us, nor did the simple fact that about 75% of the terrorists of 9/11 were Saudi citizens. Nor did killing tens of thousands and starving hundreds of thousands and potentially millions in Yemen help, nor did brutally killing and dismembering the American based journalist in their embassy on foreign soil pay us back.
We supported Iraq vs. Iran in that war, reportedly even supplying Saddam with his chemical weapons.
Our policies don't even amount to playing checkers in the Middle East. Would I be over reaching if I described our efforts as idiotic disaster resulting in war crimes?
The U.S. can not defend the flow of oil out of Saudi Arabia. The U.S. can destroy much of Iran as it did Iraq, but nothing can stop Iran from destroying the economy and the oil production in Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf Countries if war breaks out.
That picture of Pompeo and MBS says far to much. We should be ashamed, and disgusted.
17
Not one mention of Israel in this discussion? If not even the US could defend against a cruise missile attack that means Israel can’t defend itself. If the US does nothing, than Israel, in its view, will have to go on the offensive. This is 3 dimensional chess and will take some level to navigate. Unfortunately, this White House is stacked with less than practice squad players, and not up to the task. Remember, Kushner was supposed to be in charge of managing the Middle East at one point. We can assume Israel already has several offensive plans mapped out. Would they share their plans with a White House that has already proven itself untrustworthy with shared intelligence? What a mess!
2
After being lied to repeatedly in order to obtain their support for war, US citizens are either unwilling to believe or don't care about any evidence that Iran was responsible for launching this strike. Even if Iran would claim responsibility for this attack, you'd find public opinion firmly against military intervention.
The US can't stop defending murderous thugs like these Saudis soon enough.
11
From the start, this administration has jumped to its feet (even with the pain of bone spurs) and stated that We, the US, will defend SA as if we were attacked.
Am i wrong, or is that similar to the language of the NATO accord? Since when is SA part of NATO. Trump has repeatedly suggested that the US would not respond to attack on our NATO allies, per the accord.
Is this Bizzarro World...
4
One consequence of the Trump era, whether they like it or not, is that there are no guarantees anymore, not from us, not for Saudi Arabia nor Israel. There may be some guarantees from Trump, by phone no doubt, but certainly not from us. From us I can only promise this: not a single American soldier should be put in harm’s way to protect Saudi Arabia’s oil supply from the consequences of its disastrous war in Yemen. Who disagrees? (Other than Kushner and his pals.)
6
Before we rush into war with Iran, we should reflect on the lack of success of our actions in the region for over a century. Also, we should remember that Iran was willing to sacrifice a million men in the Iran-Iraq war and remain a viable nation.
Our present predicament can only be laid at the feet of President Trump who ripped up the Iran nuclear deal against the wishes of our allies and instituted crippling sanctions. Many believe, for example, that Peal Harbor was the result of our strangulation of Japan's oil supply, so the attack on Saudi Arabia was no surprise.
We need to step back and recalibrate our goals to match the realities of the region.
Iran has been a viable country for thousands of years, they are not going away. The best we can hope for is to contain their attempts to extend their control.
12
I’m more worried about the fact that with all its warships, equipment, installations, etc., the US couldn’t or didn’t detect the incoming threat.
5
gulf of Tonkin, anyone?
6
No treaties or mutual defense pacts—in short, no guarantees about defending Saudi Arabia or, for that matter, any Gulf states.
That we could be dragged into any new conflict over there to “defend” a murderous, misogynistic, feudal state and a vicious royal family is, one might imagine, unthinkable. Not so, apparently: Trump, family, maybe Pompeo, maybe others in the administration, have too much money to earn from SA.
Supporting such a duplicitous, vicious country would be another stain on America’s name, tho of course Trump et al are used to dragging down the US’s reputation for honesty, stability, and predictability.
10
Trump is in a quandary as to , should he live up to the USA agreement to protect the Gulf States .or does he antagonize his Buddy Putin by attacking Iran.Russia, and Iran are Allies that helped Assad of Syria defeat his enemies..Russia also has a Navel base in Syria.An attack against Iran may involve Russia , and start a Major conflict.
3
Saudi Arabia has the third largest military budget in the world. They have the best equipment money can buy. Let them defend themselves.
17
What happened to the story of Saudi Arabian Jamal Khashoggi's savage assassination? Was it just dropped form public awareness so soon? And Saudi's own atrocities and warfare in Jordan? Why are they expecting us to ally with and defend them now? Why are these issues not on the table and on media coverage too? Convenient amnesia? All because we are afraid of oil prices going up? Maybe another good reason to turn to other energy sources and end global dependence on over the top violent regimes like this. I do not want the US to get involved in another war, and definitely not one in defend of a regime like the current one in Saudi Arabia.
10
@tdb
Correction, Saudi war in Yemen, not in Jordan.
tdb
1
Once Trump figures out the best way to personally profit from defending the Gulf, he will take action.
God help us all.
5
Do not confuse fighting for freedom with fighting for oil.
The Saudi are eager to fight Iran to the last American.
9
@ken G
'The Saudi are eager to fight Iran to the last American.'
Best post of the day.
3
If we can't protect a major facility from drone strikes, we can't defend anything. It's only a matter of range. Iran struck deep into their enemy's territory without putting a single asset at risk.
Meanwhile, the Gulf states better get together and form a coalition that is robust enough to push back against Iran, because (I hope) we are not going to take direct action. We might backstop them, but they need to send their citizens to do the actual fighting, or they are not worth defending. We should insist on it.
I'll bet Israel would be a useful part of any coalition. Saudi Arabia and Israel working together would be a strange turn of events.
4
@mlbex, I think Israel and Saudi Arabia have a long history of cooperation in the covert sector, sharing the same main enemy - Iran. They have also cooperated against Syria in the war there (but that can also be seen as part of the overall conflict with Iran).
@Robert Mårtensson: I suspected I'd get that kind of response, and I agreet. However they might have to come out of the closet and admit it.
2
Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship and a police state and cannot defend itself because it has no standing army or military but it has religious police. That nation is ruled by the Saud family and although it has highteck weapons missels and fighters it could not defend the family business because a standing army or and armed popoulous as in Israel would likely overthrow the monarchy and the USA is their bodyguards.
10
What "US Guarantee"? We've guaranteed the security of this region of the world that has been killing each other for pretty much all of recorded history? I don't recall ever voting for that or backing anyone's platform that called for that, why don't they bother to ask us, the voters is the United States?
10
@BorisRoberts
'I don't recall ever voting for that or backing anyone's platform that called for that, why don't they bother to ask us, the voters is the United States?'
You must be new around here.
1
Agreed. I wonder why these people are killing each other for so long. I suggest that we all read the book called alternate history of US. I feel like this article is warmongering, reminding me all others NY Times published before other wars that we started wrongly.
3
It must be recognized that supplying weaponry and advanced communicationsthe the US long enabled Saudi Arabia to bomb its enemies, the Yemeni Houthis. So now the Houthis get some similar help from their allies, the Iranians, and the US acts like it has suffered another Pearl Harbor. Could we just grow up a little, and reflect on our past and its obvious implications for the present?
32
Iran knows Trump’s hollow words will never translate into military actions.
3
"U.S. Guarantee to Defend Gulf"
Huh?
We don't need to defend it. What the entire world needs is to figure out how not to depend on oil.
36
US support of autocratic leaders in the face of Soviet expansion is an historical fact and made our “keeping the world safe for democracy” sloganeering a first rate act of hypocrisy.
The ruse of WMDs in Iraq, torturing the enemy in the war on terrorism, and now the all-in backing of a regime that financed Al Qaeda and murdered a dissident journalist living in the US pretty much puts us in the dissembler hall of fame.
14
Why must the U.S.A. defend Gulf nations? Particularly Saudi Arabia, which is a barbarous quagmire of human rights violations, and which has more than enough money to fund an army. Countries that can afford an army should have to do so, rather than us playing World Policeman.
12
So here is my question. The Saudis bomb Yemen, with armaments they bought from the US defense companies. Barring absolute proof that the Iranian themselves shot those missiles and drones on the Saudi petro installations, what is different about the Yemenis using Iranian armaments? To me there is parity, as for all I know,Yemenis during the cold war period would have been served by the Soviets. Do not understand Pompeo's pompous finger pointing, even before the defense/intelligence experts spoke up.
7
@Pradeep
The houthi rebels overthrew the yemeni govt therefore I have no sympathy for them.
If Saudi Arabia/MBS wanted to ensure US support, he should not have pushed the envelope so much. He deliberately escalated the war in Yemen, aligned the UAE and Kuwait against Qatar, and had Jamal Khashoggi brutally assassinated because he believed that no matter what he did, the US would be there to back him up. Even after buttering up Trump, he has miscalculated; Trump would never put another foreign leader's interests ahead of his own. He is, first and foremost, a self-promoter.
SA's problem goes beyond MBS's political overreach. The only thing keeping their country afloat are oil profits. Meanwhile, non-OPEC oil production is going up at the same time that natural gas is becoming ever more abundant, and the use of fossil fuels is being deliberately scaled back globally in the interest of reducing greenhouse emissions. The only thing they really have to offer the US is promoting US interests in the middle east at large, but they can't do that if they're falling apart at the seams. If the US is interested in having a say over how the Middle East develops overt the course of the 21st century, they would be better served by fostering better diplomatic ties with Iran- they are the ascendant power in the region, and they will be the ones calling the shots in a couple short decades.
9
Notice the decor of the Butcher Prince's Palace: similar to the Trump apartment at the Trump Tower. Both inspired in the New Orleans bordellos from the 1800s.
To that place went our Secretary of State to pledge allegiance
to the Butcher and to offer the blood, the limbs and the lives of our boys and girls in the Military.
29
The American people don't want war with Iran. We didn't want war with Iraq. We marched in the streets; but we were overruled by the neocons and warhawks who are now gunning for Iran.
Listen to us this time. GIVE PEACE A CHANCE,
23
Since The Republican party won't stop Trump and his corrupt, murderous alliances we may thank the Iranians for showing them and us how hollow and misguided their policies are. The US has been waging war on the Iranian regime for years and yet the Iranian people have been demonstrating desire to rejoin the modern world and economy. I wish them well.
4
@betty durso I beg to differ. A plurality of Americans agreed to go into Iraq. Some of the same ignorant Americans who spout MAGA felt rolling Iraq was revenge for 9/11 and a fitting close to Desert Storm a decade before. Americans are bloodthirsty when they feel no American blood will be spilled. With the passing of the Boomer generation, Americans are now questioning this post-WWII mantra.
Rule #1: Give diplomacy a chance
Rule #2: Always fight with lots of friends on your side.
1
MBS has personally had more people killed and lied about it to the US than were killed in the alleged attack on Saudi oilfields. If slaughtering a US resident, dismembering him, and lying about it to our faces isn't enough to start a war, then I don't see how we can justify sending American troops to die in the sand over money.
15
Consider this: Over just the last 19 years the US has invaded, occupied, bombed, droned, and otherwise created deadly chaos in at least six countries in the Middle East. We have destroyed entire cities, killed hundreds of thousands, and forced millions to evacuate their homes and flee for their safety. At the same time, the US has continually threatened Iran with attack and invasion and provided billions in offensive arms to Iran’s other great adversaries, Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Now we have imposed economic sanctions on Iran to strangle their economy. These sanctions are acts of war intended to crush the life of their population—same as we are doing in Venezuela. Iran has been pushed to the limit and in response now threatens to close the straight of Hormuz and prevent exports of oil from the Persian Gulf. Any such sustained closure of the Gulf would crash the world economy. Their rationale is entirely logical. Their economy is already being crushed so why not bring down the economies of their Western antagonists.
We are thus faced with a crisis entirely created by the US and its insane neocon imperialist foreign policy.
28
Did MBS pull out the orb while Pompeo was there ("The U.S. will continue to sell us weapons. The U.S. will continue to sell us weapons. The U.S....")?
3
China is the biggest importer of Saudi oil in the world.
China needs tremendous amounts of oil and gas.
China will collapse without a steady supply of oil and gas.
Remarkably the US is not dependent on gulf oil.
How about we let Chine try their hand at figuring this out, and let the US sit this one out.
9
@New World Strong point. China also buys Iranian oil. So they are dependent on oil and gas from both countries.
2
@New World | World economy depends on middle east oil. That includes the US whether independant of oil import or not.
As we all know, a Trump Tweet is mightier than the sword. Our enemies cringe in fear when our president tweets them out. They retreat to Tweet Shelters that provide safety in the midst of offensive tweet attacks.
6
The leaders of the Gulf States singly or together are not in the least interested in having their lavish life styles interrupted by a war with Iraq.Their combined armed forces would be decimated in a few days by Iran.
They are no more eager to go to war than Trump is.
Our national security is not at risk.
5
Please, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is not our "ally" and should not continually be labelled as such in NY Times headlines. Their repressive feudal-state values are not in alignment with democracies founded on the basis of equality and universal human rights.
Neither KSA nor any of the satellite kingdoms/sheikhdoms along the southwest shore of the Persian Gulf is a member of NATO, or any other formal strategic alliance.
Our relationship with KSA is purely transactional: We sell them weapons, and they pump oil for the world market. On a short-term basis, they may provide political benefits to certain US politicians who want to keep gas prices low, to improve their chances of re-election.
But that's not a beneficial arrangement for our country as a whole. In the short run we get politicians who are corrupted by their ties to Saudi money and influence. In the long run, their downward manipulation of oil prices (often to serve their own aims to undermine other oil-producing countries) tends to promote more fossil-fuel consumption, driving global climate change.
No, they are not our ally. We should certainly not be contemplating any actions to defend them from problems of their own creation.
12
This article is based on an incorrect premise in the headline and the first sentence. There is no “promise” or “guarantee” of protection by the US military for the Persian Gulf monarchies. The US does not have a mutual defense treaty with any of those states that requires the US to defend them from attack. The fact that the US, alongside a large coalition of allies, used force to rollback the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq does not mean that the US is committed going forward. The stationing of US troops in those countries is done to serve US interests. Do those states also hope that the presence of US troops will serve to deter attacks on them? Of course they do. But that’s not the same as a promise or guarantee of protection, which only a few select countries, such as NATO members and Japan, have from the US. Even Israel has no such guarantee.
24
It seems unfortunate that a story about the long-standing U.S. commitment to "defend the Gulf" made no mention of President Roosevelt's commitment to the founder of the House of Saud, King Abdul Azis Al-Saud. On his way home from the Tehran Conference during World War II, FDR met with King Saus at Yanbu, Arabia, and assured him that the U.S. would guarantee Saudi security (the context was against the UK), in exchange for guaranteed access to Saudi oil. During the Reagan Administration, Vice President GHW Bush visited the Kingdom and renewed that pledge, which was at least part of the reason Bush sent U.S. into the Gulf War in 1991. Those who think our commitment to defense of the Gulf began in 1990 seem to overlook the Yanbu meeting, but we know the Saudis have never forgotten it.
3
@DMH A verbal agreement made by former presidents does not have the same status as a treaty authorized by Congress. At any rate, the rationale for such an agreement has long passed. We do not need Saudi oil. SA is a disgusting partner and Iran is a better choice if we need one. Iran is an old country and a democracy.
I also agree with the reader who cautioned that this incident could be a "false flag." But even if it is not, a war with Iran would be foolishment to the nth power.
1
Did the attack on Iran's facilities test our guarantee to defend them? Or is it the fact that Saudi Arabia has for decades been financially and ideologically sponsoring terrorism across the globe, and against us?
My contention is that the latter point is the operative consideration, and it's particularly galling after having defended them against Iraq 30 years ago. They are ingrates, pure and simple.
It's okay to publicly castigate the Saudis for their duplicity. But I think it might be just as appropriate to not be too public about it, and simply explain to them when trouble comes to them again that they are on their own.
This is especially the case now that we're a major energy producer again and the world needs price incentives to move to alternative energy sources. A war between Iran and Saudi Arabia would benefit our energy companies in the short term, while raising prices enough to open the door for alternative technologies. And it would wreak a lot of havoc on enemies of ours that, frankly, deserve it.
6
President Trump's "muted response" is simply reflecting the reality that there is no political support in the U.S. for yet another war, with all its human and financial costs. That's why the hardheaded John Bolton got ushered out the door. As this article notes, there is enough American military hardware and personnel in the gulf to prevent any serious territorial threats to our allies, and keep Iran in their corner. The red line is clear, if unspoken, and the Iranians won't cross it. The acting out that they are doing is detrimental only to themselves.
5
@David Godin
In America, there is always support for another war. In the last thirty years, we've started over ten. Past is prologue.
More military hardware in the Gulf means more targets for Iran.
How can your say our show of force will "prevent any serious territorial threats to our allies" when Iran, through its proxies, just launched the largest and most destructive attack ever recorded on our principle ally Saudi Arabia?
Iran is not in a corner and has crossed and recrossed many red lines with impunity. Their message is if we can't sell oil, no one else in the Middle East will. They are living up to that promise.
You say that they're "acting out" while in truth they are defending themselves after Trump broke the treaty and implemented a de facto blockade considered by most scholars as a declaration of war.
It is America that has shot themselves in the foot by abrogating the treaty. Now any overt military assault on Iran will be met with a response that will tip the world economy into a depression and greatly damage America's last remaining shred of invincibility.
4
Puzzling promises. IF the attack came from Iran, then it almost certainly came across the water of the gulf. Why isn't ALL flight movements across the water monitored, especially after the earlier drone attack? IF the attack came from weapons smuggled into the kingdom, the Saudis are asleep at their switch. Much better at sawing up people than sweeping their community for rather large military weapons. Now that America is theoretically energy independent and Trump has made it clear he doesn't want or need allies, there is no one left to defend in this doctrine except the Saudi's who, to be fair, did put up Trump's picture on a building, and that is worth a lot to him. Not to most of us though.
12
When did the United States guarantee to defend the Gulf?
Who did we promise, that we would do that?
When did the American people promise to send their sons and daughters into the Gulf, to fight and die?
And who are we defending the Gulf, from?
Iran?
Russia?
Saudi Arabia?
China?
Who is our enemy?
Where is this American Policy of defending the Gulf, written?
In the Constitution?
In the Laws of Congress?
Or on the back of Trump's cocktail napkin?
47
@John Doe . The United States was the world's premier naval power at the end of World War II. We've been keeping the oceans safe to bolster international trade (which benefits us), to contain communism, and to protect our lifeline to oil. We don't need Middle East oil any longer, thanks mostly to our domestic fracking efforts.
We will need to find a gracious way to withdraw from our commitments.
1
@Gary
So what's your point, Gary?
Thanks for the History Class.
I already knew all of that.
So, WHERE does it say that we have a commitment to Mohammed bin Salman?
WHERE does it say, that we're obligated to fight and die for him?
That is what I asked, in my original comment.
1
That photo was printed when Pompeo was supposedly investigating the Kashoggi murder with the Prince who was accused of orchestrating it. Despite what was released by the administration that photo speaks the truth of what transpired between them. What is going on behind the scenes at present? Laughing at their manipulating a war?
12
Trump, surprised by the attack on SA, will take only military action that helps him politically. His dilemma is that the bullies, himself and SA, have met another bully that fights back, Iran, and is fierce about protecting itself. The Saudi bullies need someone else to fight for them when facing an adversary capable of bloodying them. Trump hesitates, weighing the political costs, consulting the third rate yes-men, the only ones willing to work with him and Fox News celebrities too. What could go wrong?
15
Saudi spends billions of dollars in purchasing sophisticated advanced arms/ammunitions from America and Europe. They can not defend themselves. What they are doing with all those fighter jets ? They are very good in killing innocent Yemeni people. American soldiers should not used as mercenaries for anybody. American tax dollars should not be wasted for any more unnecessary wars. We should take care our poor people in this uneasy economic uncertainty.
17
Now, remind me, how many trillions of dollars have we spent defending the interest of the fossil fuel industry in the Middle East? How many of our soldiers have been killed? How many civilians? How many soldiers are maimed? How many have PTSD? How much environmental destruction have we caused?
War is the ultimate form of capitalism: make weapons (at horribly inflated prices), blow things up with them (at terrible cost to human life and the environment), and then built back what you blew up. A young man returned from Afghanistan with tales of our military contractors blowing up police stations and roads we had just built because they "thought" they saw someone move. This went on over and over. Build a road today; blow it up tomorrow.
Yep, wars are easy to start but difficult to end, especially when special interest are literally banking on them for profit.
32
The Arab political scientist quoted here has got it exactly right: Trump has stirred up a hornet's nest in the Persian gulf but doesn't want to take action when the hornets come out and sting. The relative wisdom of Obama's policy is now plain to see.
We have an interest in keeping the price of oil from skyrocketing and thereby hurting the American economy. The best way to do that is to reduce our Middle East presence and urge the Gulf Arabs and the Iranians to reach an accommodation. By constantly harping on the supposed threats to Israeli security and the "danger" of Iran's nuclear program, we are exacerbating tensions and promoting instability. Let the Gulf Arabs -- and Israel -- look after themselves. We ought to be out of this area, except as part of an international grouping committed to keeping the Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz navigable for all parties.
17
The framing of this article headline is troubling, because it's hawkish.
I don't recall the American people saying in a referendum or anywhere else that we want to spend our money and blood defending Saudi Arabia.
In fact, Trump during the 2016 correctly pointed out the troubling connections between the Saudis and 9/11 and Wahhabist Islam.
Embolden Iran? Well, the USA has overthrown their elected government, installed a dictator, reneged on the nuclear deal, tried to starve them via sanctions, blamed them for an attack without solid evidence, and repeatedly threatened them with annihilation.
If some other country did to the USA what the USA has done to Iran, how bold do you think the USA would be in response?!?
41
Why, whenever you see two heads of state or high-ranking government functionaries meeting in an official capacity, are their chairs never facing one another?
3
We did not promise to intervene in a war between two countries in the area.
8
What strikes me as most odd is this notion to blame Iran based on the origin of the weapons. Isn’t Saudi Arabia bombing Yemen with American made bombs? Hasn’t Congress tried several times already to block Trump to continue to deliver these weapons …
Because if the same rational is used on bombs dropped on Yemen, Palestine and other countries, it is the US who is directly responsible … I mean, this is a very much double standard of proof. Like as long as I accuse it is OK.
25
@Noek
Excellent point!
There is a price to pay for lying, belligerence, arrogance, self interest over your own country, breaking treaties, supplanting allies by acquiescing to Netanyahu the Saudi and Kushner and Trump are guilty of all of them. They have successfully transformed our government into a regime that only functions with a handful of people and extended appointments to those who are interested in satisfying their own cravings for profit or power. Strength would be facing mistakes, lifting sanctions placed on Iran and negotiating a treaty that would include Western allies, Arab states, all interested parties. Kushner and Trump must be told by Western allies, since our own government has been crippled by them, compromise is a fact of life. They aren't running their private corporations and have a responsibility to the 320,000,000 in this country and those of other nations who have no desire or want to live in fear of another war they have have caused.
9
I have to wonder if the failed Iranian rocket launch that Trump trolled them about on Twitter was part of the escalation too. Trump sure seemed to be saying, "Yeah we did it, but we're going to say we didn't" and now the Iranians do the same with this attack.
As far as responses, I see something along the lines of his Syria strike early in his presidency. He'll make sure to launch a few more cruise missiles than they did, in some kind of "my button is bigger" preening.
4
The correct response, because of the attack on world oil supply, especially after previous instances- sailors, drones, tankers in the vital Straits- should have been pinpoint retaliation strike on Iranian missile firing base or bases; immediately, no fanfare, or boasting "locked and loaded", just execution- exactly the way Israel takes care of these matters. Trump dithered, boasted, waited too long. Iran has his number.
2
@Tom Wood "Pinpoint" strikes exist only in the minds of hawks. Has it occurred to you that elements in Iran are trying to goad the US into action for domestic purposes of their own?
4
You're correct, I should have used the term "precision strike(s)".
Why are we continuing to support a 20th Century petroleum based foreign policy while the earth is suffering the effects of global climate change due to our profligate use of fossil fuel. Somehow the backward looking Trump administration and the Republicans supporting them are dragging us into global conflicts that we should stay as far away from as possible. There should be no American interference in the Middle East for any reason other than to support a democratically elected government that seeks help against a stronger aggressor. Saudi Arabia is not such a place.
10
What would be courageous and meaningful now is if one or more of the people who are seeking the nomination to run for president in the next election would speak out clearly either in favor of or against the policy of entering the fray which continues to unfold among the complex rivalries in the Middle East. The majority of Americans are not in favor of fighting a proxy war for Saudi Arabia and yet, despite the people's representatives (the United States House of Representatives along with strong opinion and a recent vote of censure against the Saudi Crown Prince in the Senate), the present administration continues to support the Saudi proxy war in Yemen and at this very moment is deliberating taking action in response to the recent attack on the Saudi oil facilities. It is evident that our country is divided on this issue but the division is NOT with the populace, the split is within the government itself. Full Stop with respect to entering the hostilities; yes, please: FULL STOP!
7
@Daniel K. Statnekov
The only candidate with a coherent, well informed policy regarding foreign affairs, who appeared ready to tackle the complex problems presented in the Middle East, is Tulsi Gabbard. Hopefully, her absence is only temporary. However, most of the Democratic candidates would probably pull out of our participation the slaughter and genocide occurring in Yemen. Trump doesn't get it when he says that someone else would sell them weapons if we don't as if we are a country of mercenary arms dealers where money is bottom line. And this administration's focus on the fact that the weapons used in attack originated in Iran doesn't get the irony of the situation, either, as if even that is too nuanced for them to grasp.
1
@Daniel K. Statnekov great point Daniel but don't hold your breath. The Democrat candidates are not robust enough to step in. You know it too- but still a good suggestion.
Plus it's not about fighting a proxy war for the Saudis, that's how the liberal's see it and it's an adolescent perspective. The US either controls the Gulf or it doesn't. Either way it's a big decision.
energy security is national security but the disconnect here is that, rather than encouraging sustainable carbon energy replacements, trump encourages its consumption.
5
Short term thinking, leads to long term problems. The biggest problem the World faces now is Climate Change. Which in large part has been created by the Industrailized Nations dependence on fossil fuels. Climate Change is truly the only war the whole planet should be fighting.
Since WWII, the competition for access to Oil, and the ability to produce and sell oil, has been the driving force behind the wars in the Middle East. Have no delusion, the current situation in the Middle East is driven by this competion for Oil, between Iran, the Gulf States and Saudia Arabia that produce Oil. All of these Nations are financially depenent on their ability to sell their Oil, to the rest of the World. Cutting off Iran's ability to do so, has created this current conflict.
The best short term way to resolve this situation, is to lift the sanctions on Iran's ability to sell their Oil. The best long term solution to prevent these conflicts from occuring in the future is for the Industrialed Nations to reduce their depenence on Oil, by investing their resources into creating and deploying alternative energy resources, such as solar, wind and hydro electricity. Otherwise, the whole world and all of our future generations will suffer even more from the affects of Climate Change, and the affects of this a possible current war and future wars over oil.
9
@Paul Piluso good comments Paul- although reliance on fossil fuel as the villain in climate change is not going to win the day.
@DED
The World's current dependence on fossil fuels will eventualy ruin all of our days, in the not too distant future. I'll probably be dead by then, but that is not the legacy I want to leave for my progeny. The ostrich philosphy of burying their heads in the sand, will not solve the problem either.
It is way past time to come to grips with, as the Texas A&M scholar puts it, "the free flow of energy". If we are required to send our young people off to the desert constantly to defend our beloved oil, maybe it's time relieve the oil industry of its massive tax breaks and subsidies, and use that money to invest in alternative energy.
How about a new campaign slogan: Solar panels on every house.
9
The American "doctrine" on regional energy began under the Carter administration.
At that time the Middle East was an area contested between the Soviet Union and the US with each nation having its client states. The Carter doctrine made it clear to the Soviets that there would be strict limits to client state rivalries.
But the world has changed significantly since then. The US is the dominant super power and despite all the violence and disruption, there seems to be an unwritten rule that the oil will continue to flow regardless of these challenges.
But the strategic approach under the last several administrations has been to control areas of contested pipelines to place China in a subservient position to the US as far as energy access is concerned.
The wars in Afghanistan and Syria are at least partially linked to contested pipeline projects. And the current sanctions against Iran have upset this status quo as well.
If Iran cannot sell its oil this is no different than if its tankers were blocked from exiting the Gulf.
This could be a motive for Iran to strike back. But its also ground for compromise and settlement.
The problem with the Trump administration is that this began with our pulling out of the nuclear treaty without stating why or offering clear goals for a new treaty.
Things have cascaded from that poorly conceived decision to where we are now. This only highlights the need for a different foreign policy from a different administration.
5
War in the Persian Gulf between two major oil producers may hasten the world's switch to non-carbon-based energy sources. Let Iran and Saudi Arabia fight it out. While they fight the oil stays in the ground where Mother Nature intended it to be and our children will find a healthier planet in which to raise our grandchildren.
8
It's not the US "guarantee" to protect the mid east.
it's the actual attempt to overthrow the non-Sunni states at the behest of the Saudis, who in return by huge amounts of US weapons.
there is no protection going on.
9
Shockingly, for once I agree with the Donald. Let the human rights suppressing, journalist murdering Saudis fight their own battles. We prop up a regime that violates all the freedoms America holds dear just because they have oil? A better solution would be to continue developing alternative energy solutions and let the Saudis keep their oil. We should have learned from Bush's disastrous foray into Iraq that engaging in a Middle Eastern war is a disaster not only for the US but for the people of the Middle East and the world.
16
@Jacqueline Gauvin
"...I agree with the Donald. Let the human rights suppressing, journalist murdering Saudis fight their own battles."
Is this statement meant to be a stab at satire since the Donald does not appear interested in human rights, unless they are suppressed in a socialist governing country?
"With little or no cost to Iran." Iran is already reeling from the effects of sanctions that have crippled its economy and caused great suffering for the Iranian people. They are already paying a very high price for President Trump's abrogating an international agreement that restricted Iran's nuclear programs. Meanwhile, Saudi's brutal war in Yemen has destroyed hospitals and schools and killed or maimed thousands of adults and children, with little or no cost to the Saudis.
15
Did not we sell copious amounts of arms and planes to the Saudis?
They should use them? This is between the Saudis and Iran.
7
The sabotaged vessels in the Gulf of Tonkin sustained minimal damage. Although the Saudi Energy Minister said the kingdom’s two oil tankers were significantly damaged, a report from Sky News Arabia showed one of the tankers afloat without seeming harm. According to the UK Independent, Yutaka Katada, the owner of the Japanese tanker that was hit this June said it was hit by bullets fired from above the water line and the US claims that the Iranians had placed a mine on the tanker were false.
We have been lied and tricked into war more than once. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin? The weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? There are always warmongers and people who become fat off war among us.
Between them, father and son, the Bushes crushed the beginning of the 21st century in the hands of war. To paraphrase Winston Churchill’s famous quote: ‘Jaw-Jaw is better than War-War.’ I am glad President Trump fired John Bolton. I am glad he would rather avoid war than fight.
It appears that even the brutal MBS doesn’t want to escalate the situation, maybe because he’s seen how hard it is to battle even tiny impoverished Yemen. But maybe he also sees what a conflagration in the region would do to the whole world, the middle east first of all. I hope the "hard charging" and "impulsive" MBS keeps that vision before him.
10
Pompeo definitely acts the nervous, grinning toady groveling for cash in front of MBS. Both Israel and Saudi Arabia want the US to go to war with Iran - not them but us. President Obama refused to play their game. Trump’s bludgeoning of Iran’s economy has not succeeded in subduing Iran. His backing of Netanyahu failed to give Bibi a victory in two elections. The Kushner peace plan? Languishing with Trump Tower deals. At home Trump is using billions from the military for a border wall across inhospitable desert. Failed dreams of an egomaniac.
50
The Saudis have plenty of weapons for bombing innocents in Yemen but not for defending its on homeland? I find that hard to believe. Why are they unable to defend themselves. And why should the United States risk the lives of American soldiers for a country that refuses to defend itself and instead carries out a guilt campaign against the U.S.
It was a group of Saudis who flew planes into the twin towers in NYC killing thousands, and was intent on doing the same in our nation's capital. Now they want us to voluntarily put American lives on the line for the sake of their economy.
And these are our "friends"???
69
That’s right....DON’T send America’s finest to sacrifice their lives in order to perpetuate the barbaric kingdom of Saudi Arabia from where 15/19 high jackets of 911 came from.
Saudi Arabia does not have anything the West needs. All they have is money to bribe some people in power.
To MBS: Don’t think because Trump is friendly with you, your situation is assured. Trump will come and go. The “people” will decide your faith, not some temporary erratic politician. Start acting human!!!
11
The Saudis are no innocents. They bought enough military equipment from the US to protect themselves. Let these murderous folks defend themselves. This is not our war.
21
I am surprised about the naivety of Arab leaders - the American protection is not free. In last Kuwait war Sr. George Bush has negotiated the price of the protection before the deployment of American forces. That is the practical way of dealing with a country that needs protection umbrella. Trump, being a business man, hope will get the price of the protection agreed before deploying American forces or taking any military action. The situation at Middle East is different and America is now self sufficient on its oil requirement - Trump should put much more cost premium on the current situation. The ball should be on Saudi Arabia’s court now - a responsible country should have mature neighborhood policy to take care of its sovereign interest.
2
58 German soldiers died fighting with you in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, many more were wounded. We mostly supported US political and/or military action around the globe, joined embargos and uphold sanctions. In addition, Germany (and Europe) is spending billions to handle the refugee crisis kicked off by US meddling in the Middle East and North Africa.
What do we get for assisting our American ally over the past 6+ decades? Constant complaining and pressuring by the Trump administration on topics like trade and defence spending. The US won't even take part in joint efforts to battle climate change, the refugee crisis or the Iranian nuclear program.
After 9/11, the Saudis stayed comfortably at home, kept selling their oil, supressing women, hacking journalists in pieces and maybe (most likely!) supporting our enemies/their brothers in faith financially.
So, what is this "ally" getting? After a well deserved counterattack for bombing their neighbour Yemen for five straight years, they (probably) will recieve US military aid against their old nemesis Iran on the basis of at best shady evidence.
Good to know! In the future it's not necessary to assist the US politically and militarily, share common morals and values or even respect basic human rights - we just have to send over some money to your rich and ruling class and will get everything we want, risk free and delivered to our doorstep.
122
@Nicolas
Our NATO allies promised to spend a certain amount on defense and not all have kept their promise.
4
@James
You are reffering to the "The Wales Declaration on the Transatlantic Bond" from 2014 (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112985.htm)
In article 5 it states:
"We recognise that these steps will take the necessary effort and funding. In light of this, we agree to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets and aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; we will direct our defence budgets as efficiently and effectively as possible; we will aim to move towards the existing NATO guideline of spending 2% of GDP on defence within a decade, with a view to fulfilling NATO capability priorities. We will display the political will to provide required capabilities and deploy forces when they are needed."
It clearly says: "within a DECADE"! 2014 + 10 = 2024. We have 2019, so there ar five years left to reach the goal. Germany already is increasing it's military spending to reach the 2% mark when it's time.
BTW: You can't simply throw money at the military and be done with it. In order to "direct [your] defence budgets as efficiently and effectively as possible", you have to figure out what you want and need, than devolp and order the equipment accordingly. This takes time! For example: The new fighter-jet called Future Combat Air System (FCAS) is in devolpment until about 2040, the new tanks will be ready to deliver in 2035.
11
@Nicholas There are many of us here in America that agree with you.
18
Why is the US destroying its own environment with oil drilling AND protecting oil in the Middle East? Either import from the Middle East and leave our environment alone or get out of the Middle East and let them take care of themselves. The original agreement between FDR and King Saud does not make sense anymore.
97
@Anthony Yes indeed, it is time for Americans to decide if we want our tax dollars and military to continue to support Mid-East Dictatorships that are supplying fossil fuels destroying our planet.
14
@Anthony
Neither option is viable. The US cannot rely on the Middle East for oil not can it abandon the region and let it fend for itself without risking destabilizing the world.
The right strategy for the US is to use its oil independence to force the region to reform as the price for continued American protection.
1
:Seeking to exact a price from the United States for its sanctions on Iranian oil sales, Tehran may also now be emboldened to carry out further attacks, calculating that President Trump will balk at another war in the region. "
What is wrong with the obvious interpretation that Iran is merely defending itself? Stop attacking Iran and they will not strike back because it is not in their interest. But attack Iran, as Mr. Trump has been doing for two years, and they have just shown that the cat has claws.
8
@Ludwig
How is Iran defending itself by attacking the Saudis but then claiming it wasn't them?
2
@James
Whether Iran took part in the attack or not, it is understandable if it did because of our government's consistent warmongering against Iran. We can expect more such attacks, whether Iran takes responsibility for them or not, so long as we continue with a false bravado and language unacceptable on our children's playgrounds much less the world stage.
2
Trump’s reluctance to use military force against Iran is no doubt motivated by what made Obama reluctant to cross that line he drew concerning Syria. It’s easy to be armchair quarterbacks. But when you are the one who may cause the deaths of many young Americans and you have serious doubts it will do any good in a part of the world that never seems to improve no matter what any outside does (eg, Afghanistan), no wonder you are reluctant. And many of us support that reluctance.
13
Who keeps the Saudis and the Iranians at loggerheads? Who benefits from this warlike situation? That is the lead question, or at least one of them.
5
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was in effect a proxy war on behalf of Iran... a foreign policy catastrophe that killed hundreds of thousands, & displacing millions. The disaster's consequences will ripple through the generations.
8
@joemcph -- it also gave us Al Quaida.
4
The real War is on Climate Change , millions of people across the world are marching today , this is must be our focus.
Can anyone in our Government see the tragic irony in our going to war over the ultimate enemy of our global environment , fossil fuels.
Can they also not see the betrayal of all our values by being allies with a Kingdom that murders its political opponents , suppresses the rights of its citizens , murders innocent women and children in the Yemen , it tolerates the evil ideology of Wahibism that is the basis for Al Qaeda and ISIS the terrorists organizations who have murdered hundreds of thousands and changed our lives for ever on the tragic day on 9/11 .
Saudis form the majority of these organizations , they recruit around the world through Madrassas financed by the Saudi Government and let’s not forget the Saudis originally financed the Taliban , our foes in our longest war.
The photo of a smarmy Pompeo with the Assassin MBS sickens me
Iran is also a bad actor as yet their citizens have not attacked us.
We should not get involved in any conflict between Sunni and Shia , we must not go to war to protect fossil fuels, let’s apply sanctions to the hilt against both countries.
This must be the catalyst for our total commitment to renewable energy to increase energy independence and protect our country and the World. Let’s work on that as our kids march
15
Whatever slows oil production, anywhere, is a boon to the planet. If Iran is behind these attacks, we should thank them.
6
These recent attacks are not being forgotten by the Saudis and Americans. Just like the several hundred US servicemen killed heinously by Iranian EFPs during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The time will come for a massive and devastating counter-reaction if Iran pushes too far.
2
Because of new technologies, the U.S. now produces so much oil that we export it. We are no longer dependent on Middle Eastern countries for their oil, and we have no legitimate reason to get involved in what is essentially a religious war between two Muslim nations.
7
What?! are we willing to spend trillions of dollars needed here to go serve as bodyguards for the saudis? Since when a president can unilaterally decide to use our military to increase his own wealth? Let the saudis deal with their own problems. They are not members of NATO, so we have no agreement or treaty to come in their defense. The saudis, especially mbs, have a beef with Iran over power and influence in their region. If mbs believes he can go against Iran and win, let him do it. This country doesn't need to get involved in another foolish war. Enough American lives have been lost in the past 15-20 years of wars. We need our money to rebuild our 19th century, decrepit infrastructure, which has been crumbling for the past 20 years. We have the infrastructure and educational system of a developing country! The American people have been patient for a long time seeing how trillions have gone to the hands of tyrants, how lives of our American military have been lost, and how so many younf men and women have come back maimed to find a system that is inefficient and underfunded! We need to invest in more housing, food for the children that go hungry every day in this rich nation, better care for our elderly, better safety nets for displaced workers...Enough of wars that enrich tyrants around the world and have no relevance to our national security.
19
@Alice HdM Fully agree. The only ones who stand to benefit from any US attack on Iran are the Saudis. Not the US and certainly not Iran.
Which again begs the question: where did these rockets come from, exactly, and can we be sure who launched them? Would it be unthinkable for the Saudis to confiscate some Iranian-made weaponry in Yemen, do a bit of damage that looks worse than it is, and paint themselves as victims to trigger a knee jerk reaction from the US?
4
i see if there can be peace and no fighting the world would be fine but everyone chooses to have chaos and war a bloodshed
1
The picture tells the world the US is all in for Saudi Oil and democracy is only used when it is convenient.
7
Saudi Arabia and Israel jointly cooperate to maintain repressive right wing states. They are both propped up with billions of dollars of complicity by the United States. We no longer have a national security interest in maintaining the flow of oil. Those billions should be spent developing an oil free economy. They are not interested in equal rights. We should let them take care of themselves.
11
The silver lining in all of this would be a forced reduction in fossil fuel consumption. Sadly, as an overly privatized consumerist society, we don’t have the governmental mandate (or even instinct, at this point) to enable the necessary redistributive policies to support a sorely needed economic contraction.
3
A lot of saber rattling and some pokes in the eye here. And while US policy has been to police the region to keep oil flowing the time has come to reconsider supporting a world economy based on oil that in large part comes from a region of interminable conflict and populated by a few very bad actors.
Embracing renewable energy would remove nearly all of this tension and potential for worldwide catastrophe. Once the oil isn’t so important the arguments will abate. We should be spending our money on a race to renewable energy and not so much on bombs. In the long we and our children will be much happier following this path.
10
Such an irony that this is the front-page story on the day of the International Climate Strike demonstrations going on all over the world. Our dependence on fossil fuel has led to too many deaths. It is time to stop, take a breath, and work to end the folly of destroying the livable environment and each other.
62
I've had just about enough of Saudi Arabia. A murderous regime with a war against its female population is undeserving of our alliance.
Period. Full stop.
184
@Gwe Ok, you've had enough. I'll send Trump a memo.
1
Hasn't the times had enough of beating the drum of war? Its dangerous, and blind support of the Iraq War should have taught the organization to have a more nuanced and careful analysis of the conditions that can lead to war. The attack on the Saudi oil facilities is Saudi Arabia's business to deal with. Haven't we provided enough arms to do so?? Iran is trying to survive and how the media continues to involve the Iranians in the business is misleading. They are arms suppliers in a conflict just as we are. Has the times ever had a story holding the US responsible for the death of the Yemenis because of the arms used to kill them???? Then stop with this irresponsible rhetoric of holding Iran directly responsible for anything in this war. And isn't it telling how much coverage oil receives when the civilian deaths are just collateral damage and not even worth a story on the back page. Disgusting.
141
This was not an unprovoked attack! The Saudis have been attacking and killing The people of Yemen for years. Angry in part because the Yemeni will not bow to the Saudi view of Islam the Saudis have engaged in a vicious war against the people of Yemen. Unfortunately and shamefully the US has helped selling arms and more and embracing the country that bankrolled and staffed 9/11. Trump and his crew have not only forgotten 9/11 but are gleefully celebrating it with the men of the House of Saud. When I see Pompeo smiling at MBS I wonder what is going on in the background. MBS ordered the brutal murder of a Journalist and we smile and scrape at their feet. Appalling and disgraceful.
184
@Justice Holmes
This is spot on. Operation Timber Sycamore should be required reading for every American to get an idea of how we operate. It was implemented and then shelved under Obama, but I have no doubt it is reopened with a vengeance under Trump.
9
Thank God we've got a deep-thinking leader taking advice from the most knowledgeable people in the world on this complex issue...
10
@Average Human Trump is a street smart poker player. That’s not a bad person to have making the call right now. I loved Obama but what happened in Syria? Smart guys don’t always win.
@Richard....."Trump is a street smart poker player"....We have noticed how well he gained the upper hand with North Korea. His use of tariffs as a weapon against China has been masterful. How he has stopped Mexico from letting asylum seekers cross their country. His actions have clearly strengthened the nuclear agreement Obama foolishly worked out with Iran. How well he has put Putin in his place and stopped him from further interference in U.S. elections. Then there is the peace agreement with the Taliban. Don't forget how he helped over throw the dictator in Venezuela. His international leadership on climate change. And how highly he is regarded in Capitals around the world.
4
@Richard. Where do I begin? Trump would get crushed in a real poker game. He isn't "smart" anything, except building his own brand. Blame Obama for Syria? The entire world can't solve that...
3
If the Saudis wanted a notable response, why don't they send the efficient crew that left Jamal Khashoggi in small, disposable pieces.
33
The sanctions Trump’s minions placed on Iran for no apparent reason, and forced the world to join, are so devastating to their economy, they amount to economic war.
At the same time, Saudi Arabia has been blockading and bombing Yemen in a proxy war against Houthi rebels to the point that 85,000 children under the age of five have starved to death, with tens of thousands of civilians killed.
Saudi Arabia, in this proxy, supports and arms Al Qaeda against these Houthis, just as it supported and armed ISIS in Syria and Iraq (operation Timber Sycamore). We sell weapons to Saudi, knowing they will be diverted to the these terrorist groups.
It is important for this paper to cover the whole truth of our role in the Middle East, not the official, sanitized version offered by Institutes funded by massive defense firms.
80
Which raises the question: why is there a U.S. guarantee to defend the gulf? Like Iran did before the overthrow of the Shah, all the Arab oil producers have spent billions purchasing our most sophisticated U.S. weapons systems, if not for their own defense then for what exactly? If they want to war with Iran, let them. But the last thing any American administration should do is get us involved in an internecine Muslim war between Sunnis and Shias. Especially when that an administration led by a narcissistic liar who knows nothing about the region, its history and its religious fault lines.
35
One obvious thing missing from the article is that the US is not the defender of the region, and has no business making a military strike. If the US does intervene it is solely for the purpose of continued US hegemony within the region.
A second obvious omission is that if Iran had anything to do with the attacks--and it's not clear they did--those attacks were not unprovoked. Iran has been dealing with crippling sanctions by the US, and is looking for any way to put pressure on the US to lift those sanctions. It doesn't make the attacks right, but it does put them in a better context.
272
@Bret
I've not heard that the attacks cost human life. The emphasis has been on the economic impact to the flow of Saudi oil. In the greater scheme of things that seems a fair way to counter economic impact inflicted on Iran.
What would make the attacks "right?" What would make the carnage in Yemen "right?"
20
@Bret
Excellent comments, Bret. But I fear any attempt at logic will be lost in the 'fog of propaganda':
Fact: Saudis destroy Twin Towers and part of Pentagon.
Conclusion: The Iraqis did it.
Fact: Houthis admitted bombing Saudi oil tanks.
Conclusion: Iran did it.
See any parallels?
129
@Bret
It doesn’t make the attack entirely wrong either. No civilians were killed, not even a soldier was killed. They hit an economic target, one that funds a Saudi war machine that has killed 85,000 children and threatens the mass starvation of ten million more.
13
Seeing Pompeo thoroughly enjoying himself with the Crown Prince after what was done with Mr. Khashoggi is sickening.
The US priorities are so off the wall.
407
@MIMA There is definitely something fishy about Trump and Kushner’s relationship with MBS and Saudi Arabia. Pompeo seems to be a Trump loyalist like Bill Barr. Pompeo and Barr seem willing to do whatever Trump wants with no regard for the Constitution or the rule of law.
34
@MIMA
To these people there is only money and power, and nothing else matters. Not countries or patriotism, not justice and rule of law, not right and wrong. Only money and power.
20
@MIMA
The Bush family's relationship with the Saudi royals was weird also.
Leading up to the First Gulf War, the US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, April Glaspie told Sadaam Hussein that the US was okay with Iraq invading Kuwait.
from transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. – July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait)
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie –" We have no opinion on your Arab – Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960’s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."
https://www.globalresearch.ca/gulf-war-documents-meeting-between-saddam-hussein-and-ambassador-to-iraq-april-glaspie/31145
The purpose of "allowing" Iraq to invade Kuwait, was to scare the Saudi's into accepting a US base.
Osama bin Laden was incensed about a US base on "holy Muslim land", and that was an important reason for 9/11.
US intentions to dominate the world, always have unexpected consequences.
Hopefully Trump knows that messing with Iran anymore than he has will have consequences for the economy and will alienate much of his base, who like most citizens do not want more war in the Middle East... or anywhere.
13
Let’s be serious about the core problem here. Trump decided he would end the deal with Iran, so that he could bully Iran into doing anything he wanted them to. Like many bullies it never occurred to him that the target might fight back. (You can also put the Chinese trade war into that category.). So we’re stuck with a mess of our own doing.
War is a ridiculous answer to this problem we’ve made. It is most certainly not a crusade for the good of the world. We just have to find a face-saving way out of our mess. That seems to be what Trump is trying to do, but it’s not simple to put the pieces back together. One problem with this sort of bully diplomacy is that you strengthen the hand of hard liners on the other side.
But we shouldn’t mistake what is going on. This isn’t a new Iranian challenge to the world order. It’s our own incompetent mess.
17
i don't remember asking anyone to defend other countries.
5
The United States is now self sufficient in the production of oil and gas and will remain so for many years. Europe, China and Japan are dependent of gulf oil. Let them spend their wealth and lives in assuring a steady supply from the gulf.
The world complains that the United States interferes in the world stage. Let these nations put up or shut up.
6
Since Trump welched on our nuclear agreement with Iran, we have had nothing but headaches in that area of the world, and now are at the precipice of a war-like action. That's not fake news and as the Brits say, we are in a spot of bother.
6
I remember 1990 and the first Gulf War when the American troops did the fighting and all the rich kuwaitis fled to London and Paris and partied like it was 1999. Then they were brought back and allowed to ride in on the first vehicles into the capital as if they fought as liberators of their country. Phony wars.
10
My first though exactly. How much do the Saudis pay for our mercenaries, excuse me, I meant US Military?
6
There's no guarantee to defend or protect the Gulf Arab countries...there's a promise of protection, but a promise is not a guarantee.
The Saudi monarchical regime and the others of the region sought to ensure the continuity of this understanding by acquiring advanced weaponry and defense systems (that clearly are above their abilities to use properly) from the United States, pumping billions into our weapon manufacturers, and through other "lobbying" (aka bribing) actions.
Realizing its shiny new tax-free havens could be vaporized by Iranian missiles, the UAE has already dispatched envoys to Iran to de-escalate the tensions, and pulled out of the Yemen war.
Saudi Arabia also knows Al-Khobar and its Eastern province would be annihilated within minutes.
Saudi Arabia is far from being our friend and ally. It's nothing but a leech.
6
US defense of interests in the Gulf doesn;t always mean violent military conflict.
There have been many interpretations of the meaning of the Abqaiq attack.
And many criticisms of how Trump is handling the situation.
But the fact is, that everything is as it should be.
The attack on Abqaiq is proof that the sanctions are working as intended, and proof that the theocrats in Tehran have become very, very desperate.
They tried to shift the US course by instigating a fight.
Fail.
As for the success of the attack, well, yes, these weapons got through whatever meager defenses were deployed.
They are designed to do so, as are ours.
But it is certain that adjustments and additions will be made to mitigate the likelihood of future, similar, successes.
In the absence of a sustained action like a real war, such an attack is a short, sharp, temporary phenomenon and its effects are only be temporary - because any facility can be rebuilt. It just takes time and money.
And despite all the wishful thinking by the Trump haters, his actions to date are exactly correct, and his policy implementation is working.
Iran is buckling under the strain of the sanctions, and there is nothing they can do to ease the pain. And Trump, and the Saudis, aren't taking the bait.
Attacking and conquering is difficult. Defending is fairly simple.
We can do nothing, for a very long time. Far longer than the theocrats can hold their vicious regime together.
1
In an era when we need to abandon fossil fuels, we also need to abandon an out-dated policy that already has us mired in the war in Yemen. There is, as the Obama administration correctly recognized, only one rational and reasonable way out of the current situation and that is through diplomacy. Donald Trump's rash decision to pull out of the multinational JCPOA [aka the Iran nuclear accord] and impose sanctions has led us to this moment where we are on the brink of a major, potentially catastrophic, war with Iran that would engulf the entire oil-rich region. If Donald Trump wants the big diplomatic "win" he's been seeking, here's is his opportunity to offer sanctions relief in return for the immediate release of the oil tankers Iran has confiscated along with opening negotiations on an enhance JCPOA. Any other alternative will only escalate the situation toward a major disaster.
15
So much to defend...I guess one has to prioritise...so let's stick to the only real one: and that is the defense of the uninterrupted supply of oil for the United States.
There. I made it simple for you.
3
@waldo
And US/Canada providing military weapons in return.
@waldo
It is my understanding that as of 2018, America is the leading producer of oil.
3
Our support is based upon OIL! Getting out of dependence upon Middle Eastern oil should be a primary goal, not upholding and getting into bed with the country that sent over men to destroy the Twin Towers.
20
The Saudi's have committed war crimes in Yemen with the exclusive help of Trump. Beside the murder of a US Journalist, Trump must be considered Trump as an accessory in that instance and murder. Impeachment is a must.
9
@William Obama also helped the Saudis. I suppose it is too late to impeach HIM? I am not excusing Trump, not at all, but siding with Saudi Arabia has been US policy for a long time.
For a very long time, the US has been playing a strategic game with arms and money (sanctions). There is always a pretense that the US is pursuing democracy or rights or whatever, but it is a pursuit of power, nothing else.
And giving Democrats a pass is a mistake, for Democrats have also been quite aggressive, witness Vietnam.
3
Who really thinks Trump cares in the least for our treaty obligations? Trump only wants to protect Saudi Arabia to help his hotel in Riyadh, and to reward the Saudis for their lavish patronage of his properties all over the world.
In short, Trump was bribed.
44
Why should the US guarantee to defend the Gulf monarchies or anyone else? Why should young American men and women serving in uniform have to bleed and die in order to defend foreign countries to whom they owe no allegiance? Is their blood so cheap?
23
“The United States” also said that we had no choice but to go to war with Korea to prevent the spread of Communism l. “The United States” said that going into Vietnam Nam was necessary and we were winning
“The United States” also said that we needed to attack Afghanistan as it was Afghan men who attacked us on September 11th. It was 15 Saudi men and 4 others. “The United States” said that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and we must go to war in Iraq. Does anyone see a pattern here?
All these winnable wars, right
I don’t want to win anymore.
If Trump can be believed there should be no attack on Iran
We have been lied to enough. And certainly the Saudi Government and Mike Pompeo are lying because they are itching for another war.
43
President Trump, his Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and the Saudis all blame Iran for the stealth drone strikes on Saudi oil facilities. Iran vehemently denies the attacks and has posited they may not meet with the United Nations Security Council next week in New York City. Re our commitment to defend Saudi Arabia, do we need a 3rd Gulf War, protecting Saudi Arabia's rich oil fields and absolute monarchy from attacks by another Arab nation? Will this commitment lead to World War III?
Seeing photo of Mike Pompeo in his chartreuse tie, beaming at Crown Prince MbS in Riyadh, brings sickening memories of tbe Saudi's murder and dismemberment of Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi, a reporter for the Washington Post (on an O "genius"-visa) exactly one year ago.We await decisions by our president, his SOS and the Congress on how we will proceed toward war or peace. How can America spend our blood and treasure defending Saudi Arabia? Have we forgotten the run-up to World War II last century?
8
@Nan Socolow Actually I believe that Iran might well have been responsible. It was their way of saying, "do not attack us with the idea that there are no consequences for you."
And both the US and Saudi Arabia understand power even if they are strangers to morality.
2
Is the New York Times advocating for war in the Gulf? That’s what it looks like. Trump (with encouragement from his Saudi Arabian allies) pulled the US out of the nuclear agreement with Iran—an agreement that Iran was following—and introduced punishing new sanctions. Iran responded (though our government has yet to provide proof.) Now we’re supposed to go to war with a country the size of Germany—to defend a theocratic nation that denies basic rights to its women and has a history of funding terrorism? A nation that had a huge hand in instigating the current crisis? No.
19
This is what Trump gets for pulling out of the deal with Iran. Like all bullies he’s a coward who doesn’t know what to do when his threats don’t work.
The sooner we get started on the Green New Deal, the sooner we can break our addiction to fossil fuels and leave them to stew in their own oil. (Not to mention finally taking climate change seriously.)
If the ability of the U.S. to use its military power effectively in the Middle East is now in question, where does that leave Israel while it tries to put a new government together? The embrace of Trump by certain political factions in Israel may now prove toxic.
Putin, China, and our much abused allies must all be watching to see what happens next. Given the mystery of the blocked Inspector General report on top of this, Pelosi better start pushing impeachment hard or use the 25th Amendment.
(It would be nice if Boris Johnson would back off Brexit too - the last thing the world needs is more chaos right now.)
Too many things are falling apart while we let Trump, Moscow Mitch, and the GOP put their grasp on power ahead of the national interest. It’s like a nightmare where you can’t wake up.
4
I love the grace, good taste and quiet dignity always exemplified by the exquisite interior and exterior spaces of Saudi royal palaces.
It shows you what billions of dollars will get you.
-- With a tip of my Stetson to Mel Brooks's "Young Frankenstein."
3
@A. Stanton
Those chairs look fabulously comfortable
Maybe one of the differences between being president of the US and president of a real estate company is that when you break a big Manhattan office lease to squeeze the tenant, nobody bombs Brooklyn.
6
I don't understand why the US has to defend Saudi Arabia. We sell billions of dollars of weapons to them. One would think they would be able to defend themselves. Instead, they are goading us into committing blood and treasure to yet another middle east quagmire. These, the same folks who were the architects of 9/11. No thanks, we should sit this one out.
5
Trump has painted himself into a corner. His only out is to stall until he looses in 2020. Then he can walk away a "winner" as he did in Atlantic City.
I disagree with the general tone of this article. The US has been involved in attacking and provoking the Middle East/gulf since the 1950s.
We have done nothing but destabilize the region, hurt the locals, and create targets on our own backs. Oh and spent trillions of dollars.
The last thing we need to do now is start attacking Iran (likely with many civilian casualties) and Re-igniting this never ending conflict.
Unless part of a global coordinated effort, this is not our fight
10
What interest would be served by the US defending Saudi Arabia. If Trump cannot make the case for Europe, South Korea and Japan, it is certainly a stretch for the butchers in Saudi Arabia.
4
This article is dangerous. It suggests that the U.S. should flex it’s
Imperialist muscles again and attack Iran to defend Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is perhaps the world’s most reactionary regime that has been conducting drone strikes against Yemen which has killed thousands and has enforced a blockade which has resulted
in starvation in that country.
Any attack against Iran would result in a catastrophic war in the
Middle East.
Does Humanity really need that?
Mike
13
The armchair generals are at it again. In fact, the threat from Iranian air attacks to Saudi petroleum infrastructure in the Eastern Province drove the sale of AWACS, F-15, and tanker aircraft to the Saudis in the early 1980's.
At that time, the Congressional Israeli lobby succeeded in barring transfer of racks, training, mission planning tools, and systems required for air to ground strikes. Any similarity between USAF and Saudi capabilities with a similar complement of aircraft was purely coincidental.
Today, with threats including a variety of remotely piloted and autonomous air vehicles, the Saudis need the integration and operational coordination of a variety of air, ground, and space-based systems.
It's something we can't sell them in a box. We can deploy the people who can make it happen today and train the Saudis for tomorrow.
But, because of a generation of poor decisions about our own air defenses, we ourselves have not adequately protected our own cities against similar attacks.
3
The headline is misleading. Saudi Arabia has no formal military alliance with the US, unlike, say Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait (I don't know about the UAE).
These distinctions matter.
3
So after nearly two decades of war in the greater Middle East following an attack on the World Trade Center, America is supposed to attack Iran, because Iran sponsored an attack by Houthis in Yemen, who attacked Saudi Arabia, who nearly 20 years ago sponsored 9-11 and set off Americas two decades of war...
Why are we defending Saudi Arabia?
6
If the U.S. had learned its lesson from the oil embargo of the 70's and really worked for energy independence, we would not have been involved in two Gulf wars and now on the brink of a third.
Instead, we wanted to keep our gas guzzler SUVs and now to the point that traditional American car makers don't even want to make anything else.
Bottomline, we the American people and our government are the ones solely responsible for our entanglements in the Middle East because of our unquenchable thirst for oil! Wake up America!
5
It's laughable that we never seem to grasp the fact that there are factors we can't control when playing role of what the neocons called, pre Iraq war, the last great superpower. Lessons should have been learned as far back as Viet Nam, but I digress.
Trump the Bully, thinks he can place inhumane sanctions on Iran, at the behest of Bibi Netanyahu, and then recoil in faux outrage that Iran might, real or imagined, not play nice. What does Trump want from Iran? Even he doesn't know.
Lesson learned. Elect a former game show host as president and look out! It's going to be a bumpy ride.
4
Saudi Arabia has been the goose that lays the golden eggs for the US. The agreement is we will provide military protection to the Kingdom from what are perceived as its enemies in exchange for the king committing to conduct all oil transactions exclusively in US dollars, purchase all its military requirements from the US and buy large swathes of US debt on an annual basis. All countries that purchase oil from OPEC have to have dollar reserves and the US has been making a fortune out of printing them. Thanks to them & the cartel, the dollar turned into a marketable commodity overnight. Any serious attempt to break from the Kingdom or criticize the Crown Prince in any way, will likely draw a response from Riyadh that, if taken to the extreme, can plunge the value of the dollar to less than that of used toilet paper.
6
Articles such as this one are front-page, top-of-the-fold. Why? Slow news day? Lay down a challenge to a chief executive who can't handle a challenge without over-reacting? I think that the implicit guarantee of American support to Saudi Arabia would be if Iran were to invade (across the Persian Gulf or through Iraq). It was never assumed that we would get involved in every tit for tat by third parties. The price of Saudi oil fluctuating a few cents was never a cause for belligerence.
5
Who needs proof to start a war - is that what this author is implying - just follow what the Saudis and the war profiteers want - it worked in Iraq. The US has radar and other technology blanketing Iran, they would know immediately whether Iran did it or not. Is our mega billions technology really not capable to detect if Iran did it as they say. How is the US going to go on selling arms to 73% of the worlds dictators with shoddy products?
Also Iran showed with radar that the US drone in June did enter their airspace , along with a manned airplane. Also the mining the tankers earlier has not been shown conclusively to be from Iran, only with speculative grainy video are accusations made. Someone is anxious to start a war with Iran.
The drone equipment can be purchased on the black market by the Yemen Houthis from items sold to the Saudis by the US. It does not take a mega multibillion dollar corporation to make these drones anymore. The Houthis are in a poor country but that does not mean they do not have very smart people. This is a David VS Goliath moment that the US and Saudis are just coming to gripes with - and also US military equipment corporations. Yemen has every right to strike back against the Saudis who started the genocide against them causing the worlds worst humanitarian crisis. Also the US fingerprints are all over weapons and air support for the Yemen war.
This is a Saudi and Middle East issue, not a US issue - no more wars for oil.
8
“free flow of energy”?
What does that even mean?
There is no free flow, it has cost the US trillions of dollars to support this “free” flow. Money we could have invested to help free our selves from this outdated thought pattern that we have to defend the oil reserves of Saudi. Not only their oil reserves but their way of life and culture.
It also preserves the outdated militarily industrial complex of US by providing a “reason” to keep spending trillions on projecting US world power that only seems to be aimed at protecting the Middle East, selling arms to the Middle East and bending over backwards when it comes to supporting countries that really don’t align with values of free markets and democracy & human rights. This protection deal was mutually necessary in the beginning but now needs a lot of renegotiation and I think both countries are in denial of this. Saudi is way to dependent on US support and actually is playing the US for fools. Why should we be fighting political wars thousands of miles away just to support the price of oil. Who wants to die for that?
5
I don't think the US has a mutual defense agreement with Saudi Arabia, does it? There's all this talk about US commitments to the Persian Gulf but it's not in writing is it?
Let the US apologize for installing the Shah in the '50s, and then end the economic warfare against them. Then let's see what happens!
8
What are we defending the Gulf from? We do not even know where the attacks originated from and who did it beyond a reason of a doubt. Going to war with Iran to say "we are defending the Gulf" is like going to war with Iraq and say "we are defending America". I hope for once we are not repeating the mistakes from yesterday.
3
I've read some opinions that say the sanctions are an act of war against Iran. Iran could just give in to whatever demands the US makes or it could find ways to retaliate.
Now, we are faced with what Pompeo has said is an act of war by Iran. The international flow of oil is needed for economic and military security, but there are a lot of players who will benefit if Saudi Arabia is hindered from full production.
Russia will benefit from increases in the price of oil. Some US corporations will also benefit.
Trump must be conflicted because increases in the price of oil affect voters who end up paying more for gasoline. That has always been a sensitive point with voters.
It's unfortunate that it comes down to responding militarily to protect the flow of oil. A different administration might never have withdrawn from the agreement with Iran and pursued other means to address legitimate concerns about Iranian behavior. A really different administration would understand that there are no good guys and a lot of bad guys who are trying to protect interests the US doesn't share.
Perhaps a response to the conflict in Yemen could help. It seems they are actually at war with the Saudis.
It's the epitome of unfortunate that we have a president who is so unable to understand complexity.
1
The current administration is learning the lesson that a great many world leaders have been made painfully aware when dealing with the Middle East; it is a region that has existed for millenia with boundaries and alliances as shifting as its sands. You don't "conquer" it, you don't "rule" it; if fortunate you can establish a temporary co-existence at best. Before any president reads a "classified" file on the region, they should first have a few good professors give them a history primer to realize just how little we outsiders know about the area we call the Middle East.
14
The oil-rich monarchies of the Middle East may finally be learning a lesson about the President that should have been obvious to them long before this: The only factor that drives Trump's decisions is his perceived self-interest in the moment each decision is made. Not what's in the our country's best interest. Not what his advisers think makes the most sense strategically. And certainly not what's in our allies' best interest.
The Saudis, for example, may have made the critical error of assuming that the perceived US's financial and strategic interests in protecting the Kingdom - as well as Trump's seeming willingness to go to great lengths on their behalf (enabling the Khashoggi murder cover-up, for example) - meant that they had a real partner in Donald Trump. But Donald Trump doesn't have partners. He has disposable relationships that last exactly as long as they meet his perceived personal needs.
Of course, in the case of the Saudis, there's also significant evidence to suggest that Donald Trump's murky personal financial entanglements with the Kingdom may mean that that his is still, for the moment at least, acting in "their" best interests. Perhaps they actually did learn the lesson well in advance of their neighbors. In any case, the Saudis and their neighbors all appear to be quicker studies in this regard than a sizable portion of the US electorate.
6
That tie is an odd choice.
A bit too fun for the moment and position.
It says I'm a lightweight and not a very serious person.
5
@anon.
Totally agree on the neckwear flub by Sec State. This kind of tie defines the concept of "negative gravitas".
I think that many Americans are tired of unending wars. One war in the Middle East always leads to another. It reminds me of Europe's hundred year war. There are many solvable problems in our own country. when we go to war our treasure and lives are spent. there is no way I want the US to involve itself in another Middle Eastern War. If we move away from petroleum dependency their will be no need for war there. The rise of terrorism started with our involvement in the Middle East. Who profits from such wars? It is not the average citizen of our country. Follow the money into the pockets.
150
@Vicki From Vermont
The wars are not because of petroleum dependency - that ended with the oil shales.
The wars are because of the need to guarantee continuing profits for the oil giants.
There is a difference.
Let them defend themselves. They are well equipped with the armaments and material and the training do do so. At best we can give them logistical support for which we can charge them copious sums like they did to us with their oil.
79
It sounds like they are figuring out how to get paid for the defense. Remember when Bush saved Kuwait a payment was made. The Saudis used to buy our weapons as a way to get our defenses now Trump and his advisors are negotiating additional methods of payment. The shakedown may backfire for the Russians are trying to sell their missiles after succeeding with Turkey. “We really want to help you but our wallets need filling.”
7
Not that I want to side with this administration. but Mr. Abdulla is wrong to say we provoked Iran. Seems to me it is the Arab states that are in Yemen who are directly provoking Iran. I also think Iran knows a bully when they see one and knows that this particular bully does not have the stomach to attack Iran, if we are not directly attack by Iran. So Iran will continue to attack with proxy allies. Saudi is not a friend they are business partners. We are not allies. So let them spend there own lives to defend their own country. We will sell them the arms and ammunition to do it, thank you very much for the business.
20
We need to return to the Iran nuclear agreement and end the sanctions. If we're to sanction anyone, it should be the Saudis, who use American sourced weapons to massacre Yemeni civilians.
234
1979. The events of today had its start then. Iran was our man in the Mideast, then it wasn’t. Saudi Arabia became the chosen one.
From Carter to Trump, relations deteriorated, with a blip in 2015. Vilification of the other marked both sides.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and the decades old confrontation with Iran has not produced the desired results—not democracy, peace, reduction in security threats, and now not even oil flow.
Advocacy of escalating the quarrel should not be taken with equanimity. Iran is no match for us. But what comes after the initial attack must be carefully examined. Costs v Benefits.
Can all attacks upon tankers or oil and port installations be prevented? Is this an open-ended commitment of decades or centuries? What is the cost? Will US domestic programs be at risk to cover the costs?
As one Arab analyst stated “Now an Arab Gulf strategic partner has been massively attacked by Iran — which was provoked by Trump, not by us.”
Contrary to policymakers that have led us here, it maybe time to engage in serious talks with Tehran and to reach an accommodation that will secure oil flow and establish some stability to the area.
Iran has played a major role in the area since the days of the Achaemenid Empire. Yes, we are THE super power, but Iran should be given its due. Its size and resources must be recognized.
Iran within the fold of the international community holds greater long term promise than endless hostilities.
54
I disagree that 1979 is the staring point of current events. You omit the fact that in the 1950’s, Iran has a secular, progressive, democratic government under Prime Minister Mossadegh. But the CIA and the oil companies didn’t like the fact that he wanted Iran to have more of a say in oil policy, so they overthrew him. They installed “our guy”, the Shah, who was a brutal dictator.
By neglecting these crucial events, you propagate the false notion that the overthrow of the Shah came out of the blue, and that the U.S. has always wanted Democracy in Iran.
If you don’t learn your history, you are condemned to repeating it.
366
@doughboy
Funny how things can change.
"Saudi Arabia became the chosen one."
Saudi Arabia declared a total oil embargo on the West in general and the US in particular in 1973.
Nobody remebers that?
21
@doughboy and the US did the same thing to the Shah, because he didn’t want to lower the price of oil...They removed him, in the most dishonorable way. They planted the seed for revolution and accomplished their trademark: regime change.
The mullahs in Iran are the result of US/UK greed and constant meddling to reshape to what they believe is in their favor.
Watch this video of the Shah where he explains why he doesn’t feel he should lower the price of oil. Within a few months he was out.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n-grR1e6dw8
4
There are presently many world powers that want to see war between the US and Iran, that includes Russia, China, Israel and Saudi Arabia. If we don’t dig as deeply as we can into figuring out the who, and just take the obvious evidence at face value, it could be yet another Iraq - a US/Saudi oilgrab war.
38
@Tony Lewis
I believe that Russia is considered an ally of Iran. They may benefit from the attack on the Saudi oil facility as oil prices rise.
China has interests in keeping the oil flowing. They might like to see the US distracted in the trade wars, but I don't think they are looking for disruptions in the oil business.
Israel has a lot of reasons to want the US to be hostile to Iran. They also have internal turmoil as reflected in the elections.
Of course Saudi Arabia wants the US to step up the pressure on Iran. There are other Arab states who would also applaud that. I doubt that Trump is capable of addressing the complexities of the relationships among these nations.
4
@Tony Lewis
Russia and China do not wish to see such a war.
4
@Tony Appart from Soudi Arabia, Israel and John Bolton, no one wants a war. If only the US had remained under the 2015 terms, we wouldnt have such problem at hand.
Chasing reelection and middle east hegemony, a good justification for the million of life broken.
3