Two points from me:
1) Hangarshuffle, the only way that the world will ever be at peace is if different cultures learn to accept that they are different, that no one culture is superior, and that no culture has a right to impose its values on another. I think those are sentiments with which you would agree. If you do agree with them, though, you have to accept moral relativism in all its forms... which means if the Saudis and their allies have a higher tolerance than the West does for collateral damage in the conduct of armed conflict, then there is little we can say or do about it. As the Swedes found out recently, there is no rule written in stone that the end-point of the evolution of society looks like western liberal democracy or a western viewpoint on human rights. East Asia has proved that democracy is not a prerequisite for successful capitalism, as had previously been thought, which kind of undermines the whole IMF / World Bank approach and explains why everyone's signing up to the new Chinese development bank. And as the EU and NATO have found out in Ukraine, "soft power" is not the answer either - it runs up against people who only believe in "hard power". It's a big, bad old world out there.
The message here: The West has to get over itself
Sweden's feminist foreign policy has seriously annoyed Saudi Arabia
2) Bearing in mind the above, it will be interesting to see:
a) How modern air power performs when rules of engagement are, shall we say, "permissive"...
b) Which of the Gulf states can use their shiny toys to best effect
c) What political price the UK and US will pay with the GCC for refusing to directly participate in a ridiculous regional balance-of-power struggle dressed up in sectarian and tribal clothing.
With any luck, 2c) will see us kicked out of our delusion that we have enough global clout to act as policeman in the Gulf once the Obama completes the US's slow disentanglement from the region. Roll on the Iran deal and let the buggers sort it out for themselves, I say.