Saudi Arabia vs Iran

[ORAC]

The whole Sunni vs Shia thing is warming up nicely. The proxy wars in Syria/Iraq and Yemen may be about to become direct....

Iran minister warns Saudi Arabia after 'battle' comments: Tasnim | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-saudi-minister-idUSKBN1830Y7)

Iran will hit back at most of Saudi Arabia with the exception of Islam's holiest places if the kingdom does anything "ignorant", Tehran's defense minister was quoted as saying on Sunday after a Saudi prince threatened to move the "battle" to Iran.

"If the Saudis do anything ignorant, we will leave no area untouched except Mecca and Medina," Iranian Defence Minister Hossein Dehghan was quoted by the semi-official Tasnim news agency as saying. "They think they can do something because they have an air force," he added in an apparent reference to Yemen, where Saudi warplanes regularly attack Iran-aligned Houthi forces in control of the capital Sanaa.

Dehghan, speaking to Arabic-language Al-Manar TV, was commenting on remarks by Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who said on Tuesday any contest for influence between the Sunni Muslim kingdom and the revolutionary Shi'ite theocracy ought to take place "inside Iran, not in Saudi Arabia".

Saudi Arabia and Iran compete for influence in the Middle East and support rival groups in Syria's civil war. Iran denies Saudi accusations that it sends financial and sometimes armed support to groups hostile to Riyadh around the Arab world. In unusually blunt comments in a nationally-televised interview on Tuesday, Prince Mohammed ruled out any dialogue with Iran and pledged to protect his conservative kingdom from what he called Tehran's efforts to dominate the Muslim world.

"We know that we are a main goal for the Iranian regime," he said. "We will not wait until the battle becomes in Saudi Arabia but we will work to have the battle in Iran rather than in Saudi Arabia."

[Heathrow Harry]

well that's a brilliant start to the holy month of Ramadan I must say.........

[Lonewolf_50]

If I may summarize the story: Saudi Prince talks a load of smack about Iran. Iranian official says they'll bomb Saudi, other than Mecca and Medinah.
Another day of noise and saber rattling in the Persian Gulf. Nothing new.
-----------------------
ProTip for Air Marshall Nonesuch of Iran:
Right, you'll bomb the desert and a few select port cities. If you'd like some lessons learned, send a telegram to the US Department of Defense and ask about bombing deserts. Ask for any tips, pros and cons form the last 16 years of fun and games. Self Addressed, Self Stamped envelope recommended.

[air pig]

So if each attack the other hopefully both finish the other off and peace may reign in that area.

[ORAC]

Or pieces may rain in the area......

[Alexander.Yakovlev]

Having witnessed Iranian military readiness first hand, the indicator that Iran is preparing for the scale of operation required to attack targets in Saudi Arabia would be very obvious to any outside observer. Any outside observer would not require the breadth of technical ability available to western intelligence agencies (such as satellite intelligence). Unfortunately for Iran, this is one of the pitfalls of basing your military aviation assets alongside your civilian aviation infrastructure. You are able to see the tempo of training that the Iranians maintain, and the state of their jets, quite freely at most regional airports.

[racedo]

Always good to remind oneself whose citizens hijacked planes on 9/11 and were supporting Taliban. Has anything really changed in 16 years ?

[parabellum]

Always good to remind oneself whose citizens hijacked planes on 9/11 and were supporting Taliban. Has anything really changed in 16 years ?

They were terrorists racedo, not representative of their country, they come under the same classification as the IRA and the UVF.

[Rwy in Sight]

You are able to see the tempo of training that the Iranians maintain,

Maybe Iran follows the idea it must be seen to believed. They don't need to do it they just want to be believed.

[bcgallacher]

Having spent a few years in both Iran and Saudi in the aviation business - even involved in training Saudi mechanics I have come to the conclusion that the Iranians would find it relatively easy to overcome the Saudi military. The average Saudi is lazy,utterly selfish and frankly not too bright. Marrying their cousins for generations has done them no good. I watched a team from Germany trying to teach Saudi special forces aircraft assault techniques,it was hysterical - some were unable to climb a ladder due to lack of co- ordination. There were MP5 submachine guns lying all over the ramp,soldiers sleeping while leaning on tires. The German in charge did not say much but was obviously not impressed. I believe a large proportion of the Saudi military is comprised of Pakistani mercenaries - I doubt they would be prepared to sacrifice themselves for Saudi Arabia.

[Arclite01]

BCGallagher

I'm not disagreeing with you assessment of the average Saudi (it mirrors many other comments I've heard and makes a mockery of the 'Saudisation' policy of the Government), but for sure the US would never let KSA fall...................and definitely not to Iran.

Arc

[bcgallacher]

You are absolutely right on that point - the US would not hesitate to step in when required. Saudi would fall apart in hours without American military assistance.My understanding is that there is a very complex command structure - different branches of the military are controlled by different Princes - an added problem is that those from the old Hashemite families are not permitted high rank. A further problem is that there are conflicts between princes whose military rank may be lower than a commander, can override the orders. Any really severe conflict would be an absolute shambles - note what is happening in Yemen.

[racedo]

They were terrorists racedo, not representative of their country, they come under the same classification as the IRA and the UVF.

I don't believe Irish and British diplomats were arranging regular meetings and support facilities overseas with IRA or UVF and providing them with spending money.

[Lonewolf_50]

racedo, how about we remain on topic: Iran versus Saudi(such as it is). 9-11 has its own threads.


bcgallacher makes a couple of very cogent points; the first about the general lack of professionalism in the Saudi armed forces. The second being that the Saudis have (lucky for them) friends who may keep them from ever being put to the test.


Question for anyone interested: would it be in the interest of the region, and the world in general, for the Persians/Iranians to overcome the Arab dominance of the Holy Cities of Islam? When you consider the large populations of non Arab muslims all over the world (see Indonesia, Iran, Maylasia, etc) perhaps it's time for a change in the custodian of the holy sites.


I am not sure the current Iranian leadership necessarily wants to go there, since that would doubtless attract people to come into Arabia and begin a long series of car bomb attacks, as has been done in Iraq, but I wonder if a few of the hard line Imams and ayatollahs in Iran don't dream about that possible future.

[Royalistflyer]

Personally, I'd advocate everyone in USA/Europe etc stay well out of any such fight between Saudi and Iran. It'd probably escalate to include much of the middle eastern world, and I'd just advocate we stand back and let them have at it until they come to a standstill. It might clear the air, it might rid us of a lot of terrorist trouble and when all's said and done - its none of our business. After it ends I'd say there should be a general agreement to refuse to replace the armaments of whoever is still standing. Remember we in Britain get virtually no oil from the middle east - our oil primarily comes from Norway and Nigeria as well as significant amounts from other non-middle eastern countries - so we would have no interest in the oil outcome.

[Arcanum]

Remember we in Britain get virtually no oil from the middle east - our oil primarily comes from Norway and Nigeria as well as significant amounts from other non-middle eastern countries - so we would have no interest in the oil outcome.

If Saudi were no longer pumping oil, we'd lose about 12% of the worlds oil production capacity.

If Saudi, Kuwait, UAE, Iraq and Iran were no longer pumping oil then about 35% of the world's oil production capacity would disappear.

So we might have an interest as Brent crude would not be trading at ~$50/barrel!

[pzu]

If Saudi were no longer pumping oil, we'd lose about 12% of the worlds oil production capacity.

If Saudi, Kuwait, UAE, Iraq and Iran were no longer pumping oil then about 35% of the world's oil production capacity would disappear.

So we might have an interest as Brent crude would not be trading at ~$50/barrel!

Also, the UK oil is primarily bought on the 'spot market' and as such we do not have supply guarantees whatever the price!!!

PZU - Out of Africa (Retired)

[Heathrow Harry]

"perhaps it's time for a change in the custodian of the holy sites."

trouble is most of the World's Moslems are Sunni not Shia - you'd be handing them over to the Ayatollahs and similar who like to dictate religion (similar to the Popes) whereas Sunni is (ideally) only you and your direct relationship with God without ANY intermediaries

[Lonewolf_50]

"perhaps it's time for a change in the custodian of the holy sites."

trouble is most of the World's Moslems are Sunni not Shia - you'd be handing them over to the Ayatollahs and similar who like to dictate religion (similar to the Popes) whereas Sunni is (ideally) only you and your direct relationship with God without ANY intermediaries Harry, I am aware of that, but it is my opinion that the underlying tension is more Persian Arab than Sunni / Shiite in this particular case. (And of course, it's never as simple as either ....)

[racedo]

If Saudi were no longer pumping oil, we'd lose about 12% of the worlds oil production capacity.

If Saudi, Kuwait, UAE, Iraq and Iran were no longer pumping oil then about 35% of the world's oil production capacity would disappear.

So we might have an interest as Brent crude would not be trading at ~$50/barrel!


And London would lose the Billions of £££ that the Gulf states use to buy up UK Govt and UK Media that then turns a blind eye to what they do.

[SASless]

Iran would defeat Saudi in a couple of Days at worst.....so long as the Western Powers stayed the heck out of it.

That, alas, shall not happen as that would give the Iranians full control of the Persian Gulf and a huge amount of Oil (not so much the Oil itself but the Revenue it brings in on the World Market).

As they are a bit belligerent of late....if they had control....would they become far more willing to deal in a more acceptable manner with the Western Powers?

[Una Due Tfc]

Okay, it's only a matter of time before the generic "how many Iranians vs how many Saudis" involved in 9/11 argument comes out, but....women can vote in Iran, democratically elected governments have far more power in Iran....their modus operandi is far closer to ours in the west than Saudi. They're a more natural fit.

[A_Van]

Meanwhile:

"Ahead of the US president's visit to Saudi Arabia, a series of multi-billion-dollar arms deals have been outlined. The previous US administration suspended some supplies because of human rights concerns"

Source: US nears $100 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia ahead of Trump?s trip | News | DW.COM | 13.05.2017 (http://www.dw.com/en/us-nears-100-billion-arms-deal-with-saudi-arabia-ahead-of-trumps-trip/a-38824944)

Tens times more than Russia-Iran are fantasying about.

IMHO, both Iran and SA are rather a threat to European civilization currently.

[wondering]

Without oil both countries would fall back into oblivion. Nations of sheep and camel herders living in a middle age society. And that would be the end of their story. Who in the West would really care about this dry arid land? The conflict Iran vs SA would just be another shrug in the rest of the world.

Sadly, as long as the West does not get rid of its dependency on oil, it will always have 'interests' in the region especially SA. And of course there is the military-industrial complex making a few bucks with that misery.

What really bothers me, how can any civilized open society with human rights support any of those countries? :yuk:

[DirtyProp]

Because it's convenient for both parties.
We despise them, they despise us. The only thing that brings both parties at a table rather peacefully is a mutual interest, which is the one you wrote about.

[parabellum]

If Iran attacked Saudi Arabia they would also take Bahrain, Iran claims Bahrain as its own anyway, has done for years. I believe that apart from being the home of the American 7th(?) Fleet Bahrain has a defence agreement with the UK so an attack by Iran on SA could turn into a seriously messy business.

[Davef68]

In any Saudi v Iran/Sunni via Shia conflict, you also have to take into account that only one sect has a nuclear capability (and who funded it). How are Pakistan/Saudi relations these days?

[skydiver69]

Without oil both countries would fall back into oblivion. Nations of sheep and camel herders living in a middle age society. And that would be the end of their story. Who in the West would really care about this dry arid land? The conflict Iran vs SA would just be another shrug in the rest of the world.


There is a lot more to the Iranian economy than oil although that does under pin it. It has a broad industrial base although not enough to provide anything remotely close to full employment and it coped whilst sanctions crippled its oil exports. It is more democratic than Saudi Arabia and women have more influence and freedom than Saudi women. Its culture also goes back into pre history and led to a large empire and influence in the wider area. Iranian people are by and large quite conservative but are open, friendly and incredible hospitable. As such I think that your comment that they'd fall back into oblivion without oil, to be somewhat wide of the mark.

[wondering]

@skydiver69,

I was, obviously, oversimplifying. However, without oil how many Western governments would go to war over there? I reckon, the answer is close to nil. That would be political suicide.

Btw, met some very bright ppl from Iran years ago who fled after 79 and settled in the US. Sad loss for Iran.

[ShotOne]

Sure, both sides detest one another but they've so far managed to stop short of massacring one another. There's been nothing to suggest that's about to change. It's in both sides' interest that this continues; what would Iran gain from attacking Saudi? Even if they could be guaranteed everything went their way militarily, which is by no means a given, they'd become North Korea just as they're about to come in from the cold.

[Rossian]

.....I had an interesting four hour chat with an Iranian business man after a fortunate upgrade for me.
He reckoned that there was an "arc of competence" of Iran, northern Iraq, Jordan, Syria and over into north Africa. where they would always thrive. Mainly because they were educated, intelligent and entrepreneurial. The others, Kuwaitis UAE and Saudi, he reckoned would revert to the stone age without oil in pretty short order.

I have no opinion here, I just listened as he worked his way through a bottle of Emirates nice burgundy.

He had been on a visit to Iran for family reasons but he kept his own family and businesses out of Iran. He had no time for the religious zealots and thought that rabid old men were keeping the rest of the young people in Iran from developing their potential in the world.

All in all it was in interesting perspective on a place I've often flown over and would love to visit. but not under the present regime.

The Ancient Mainer

[Heathrow Harry]

I'd go along wothtat to some degree

Workwise Iranians, Iraqi's, Egyptian, Palestinian & Syrian professionals are pretty good - or they were

Not so sure about Libyans & Saudis.............. and never met enough Algerians to form a view

[Lonewolf_50]

If Iran attacked Saudi Arabia they would also take Bahrain, Iran claims Bahrain as its own anyway, has done for years. I believe that apart from being the home of the American 7th(?) Fleet Bahrain has a defence agreement with the UK so an attack by Iran on SA could turn into a seriously messy business. You'll find the 5th Fleet based on Bahrain, and the 7th Fleet based in Yokosuka. Agree that a decision to move on Bahrain by Iran could turn into a mess in a hurry. *memory foggy* I seem to recall that one of the great features of Bahrain is that it allows any number of Saudi princes to party (to include imbibing) without putting up with all of the fuss back home.

[West Coast]

Yup, took a cab across the causeway to Bahrain during Ramadan. The driver was planning on staying and partying it up because Allah couldn't see outside SA, so he was safe.

[walter kennedy]

wondering
You wrote <<Without oil both countries would fall back into oblivion. Nations of sheep and camel herders living in a middle age society. And that would be the end of their story. Who in the West would really care about this dry arid land? >>
Perhaps you should look at the intrigues around the Suez crisis - the motivations were not about oil and not only about the Suez canal, the crushing of Syria was in the arguments too. Those middle eastern nations have never been given a chance, their best leaders murdered (start with Nasser for example) or otherwise dealt with (eg Mossadegh of Iran) - whatever the economic arguments (oil, canal, whatever) the greatest problem for any budding sovereign nation state in the region is that if they become strong and prosperous they become a potential threat to Israel, so they are nipped in the bud - it has to be said.

[Bergerie1]

Rossian,
Your Iranian friend may well be right.
Iran has a long and illustrious history behind it, Saudi Arabia has none.
Think back to how nearly Xerxes came to defeating Greece and what then would have happened to European history? After that came a succession of empires - all great and cultured - Seleucid, Parthian and Sassanian, until the Arabs came.
Iran has good reason to be proud of its illustrious past.

[ORAC]

.....I had an interesting four hour chat with an Iranian business man after a fortunate upgrade for me. He reckoned that there was an "arc of competence" of Iran, northern Iraq, Jordan, Syria and over into north Africa. where they would always thrive. Mainly because they were educated, intelligent and entrepreneurial. The others, Kuwaitis UAE and Saudi, he reckoned would revert to the stone age without oil in pretty short order.

Nope nothing political there.... apart from the entire Shia/Sunni dispute and the "Shia Crescent" as the probable cause of a major, if not nuclear, war in the region....

The 'Shia Crescent' and Middle East Geopolitics - Foreign Policy Blogs (http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2017/01/31/shia-crescent-middle-east-geopolitics/)

[racedo]

Nope nothing political there.... apart from the entire Shia/Sunni dispute and the "Shia Crescent" as the probable cause of a major, if not nuclear, war in the region....

The 'Shia Crescent' and Middle East Geopolitics - Foreign Policy Blogs (http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2017/01/31/shia-crescent-middle-east-geopolitics/)

"Sunnis in the Middle East look at what is happening (especially in Mosul in Iraq, and Aleppo and Raqqa in Syria) as a strategic war designed by Iran to secure a “Shia corridor” or an “imperial bridge” in the region. They also point to the “demographic change” being “engineered” to transfer the Sunnis out of their areas, whether in Syria or Iraq. To Shias, it is nothing but a battle against terrorism."

So GCC funded ISIS and allow them carte blanche to slaughter everybody but because they are fought back against it is Iran causing the problems.

Lets see which countrys could Christians and Jews practice their faith without worry for decades...................... was it those loveable huggable peace loving Sunni countrys, or was it in countrys like Iran, Iraq, Syria.

Funny how Sunni states have been able to buy Western Governments to do their bidding, once bought they stay bought via billion dollar arms deals.

[parabellum]

Walter - Nasser was himself a murderer, responsible for thousands of deaths and totally under the influence of Moscow, it was Nasser who fed arms to the rebels in Aden,the Protectorate, to be used against the British troops there. For me the best leader Egypt has had was Anwar Sadat.

[KenV]

Always good to remind oneself whose citizens hijacked planes on 9/11 and were supporting Taliban. Has anything really changed in 16 years ?Yes. LOTS. And why Trump is personally visiting Saudi Arabia.

[KenV]

What really bothers me, how can any civilized open society with human rights support any of those countries? :yuk:For the same reasons Britain and the US made allies of the Soviets during WW2. Mutual interests.

[KenV]

...I think that your comment that they'd fall back into oblivion without oil, to be somewhat wide of the mark.Probably not economic or social oblivion. But very likely political and military oblivion. Their political and military influence in the world and the region would likely drop to essentially where Jordan is now. Meaning pretty close to nothing.

[racedo]

Yes. LOTS. And why Trump is personally visiting Saudi Arabia.

Nope

US touting for an arms deal which Israel will oppose so they will need to be bought off and then start again.

[racedo]

For the same reasons Britain and the US made allies of the Soviets during WW2. Mutual interests.


So remins us which branch Islam is Al Qaeda / ISIS again.

[juliet]

Sunni by and large.

[air pig]

If as suspected the Saudi's slow oil production to push prices up then the Iranians may just push their production up to compensate for the gap and increase income. Will seriously annoy the Saudi's who need the money. Other benefactor of this will be the US shale producers who start in part to become more profitable to fully re-enter the market.

Either way the Saudi's could be economically screwed into the ground and that gives potential for internal unrest and the House of Saud is destabilised.

Maybe it is fast approaching for the expats to consider their positions and have a holiday in Dubai?

[Heathrow Harry]

The Economist had an interesting article this week - the legacy oil producers are being stuffed as shale oil/gas (very much US based now) have an "Industrial model" which allows a better chance of playing the forward market than the traditional oil patch model- in other words unless they are willing to drive prices down to say $ 20 a bbl AND keep them there for years the US shale producers will continue to be the new swing producers

[air pig]

The Economist had an interesting article this week - the legacy oil producers are being stuffed as shale oil/gas (very much US based now) have an "Industrial model" which allows a better chance of playing the forward market than the traditional oil patch model- in other words unless they are willing to drive prices down to say $ 20 a bbl AND keep them there for years the US shale producers will continue to be the new swing producers

HH,

Indeed, the US producers are now able to extract oil and gas at a far lower cost than three years ago, so what were relatively expensive field could be brought back on line. Add into this a rationalisation of the companies with the small ones being swallowed by the bigger ones.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4074282-u-s-shale-oil-will-beat-time-record-production-levels-soon

https://www.ft.com/content/c2cbc180-0357-11e7-ace0-1ce02ef0def9

[West Coast]

HH

Can you proved a link please? I'd be interested to read it.

Thx

[Heathrow Harry]

Know thy enemy The markets frustrate OPEC’s efforts to push up oil prices

The cartel is fighting not just shale producers but the futures market

May 18th 2017

BORROWING three words from Mario Draghi, the central banker who helped save the euro zone, Khalid al-Falih, Saudi Arabia’s energy minister, and his Russian counterpart, Alexander Novak, on May 15th promised to do “whatever it takes” to curb the glut in the global oil markets. Ahead of a May 25th meeting of OPEC, the oil producers’ cartel, they promised to extend cuts agreed last year by nine months, to March 2018, pushing oil prices up sharply, to around $50 a barrel. But to make the rally last, a more apt three-word phrase might be: “know thy enemy”.

In two and a half years of flip-flopping over how to deal with tumbling oil prices, OPEC has been consistent in one respect. It has underestimated the ability of shale-oil producers in America—its nemesis in the sheikhs-versus-shale battle—to use more efficient financial techniques to weather the storm of lower prices. A lifeline for American producers has been their ability to use capital markets to raise money, and to use futures and options markets to hedge against perilously low prices by selling future production at prices set by these markets. Only recently has the cartel woken up to the effectiveness of this strategy. It is not clear that it has found the solution.

The most obvious challenge shale producers have posed to OPEC this decade is the use of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to drill oil quickly and cheaply in places previously thought uneconomic. Once OPEC woke up to this in 2014, it started to flood the world with oil to drive high-cost competitors out of business (damaging its members’ own fortunes to boot).

But it overlooked a more subtle change. Fracking is a more predictable business than the old wildcatter model of pouring money into holes in the ground, hoping a gusher will generate a huge pay-off. As John Saucer of Mobius Risk Group, an advisory firm, says, shale has made oil production more like a manufacturing business than a high-rolling commodity one.
That has made it easier to secure financing to raise production, enabling producers to spend well in excess of their cashflows. Mr Saucer says the backers of the most efficient shale firms include private-equity and pension-fund investors who demand juicy but reliable returns. They are more likely to hedge production to protect those returns than to gamble on the “home run” of the oil price doubling to $100 a barrel.

“Their hedging is very systematic and transparent,” he says. “They don’t mess around with commodity speculation.”

Data from America’s Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a regulatory body, bear out the shift. They show that energy and other non-financial firms trade the equivalent of more than 1bn barrels-worth of futures contracts in West Texas Intermediate (WTI), more than double the level of five years ago and representing almost a quarter of the market compared with 16% in 2012. Many of these are hedges, though Mr Saucer says the data only reflect part of the total, excluding bilateral deals with big banks and energy merchants.
OPEC and non-OPEC producers unwittingly exacerbated the hedging activity by inflating output late last year even as they decided to cut production from January 1st. The conflicting policies helped depress the spot price relative to the price of WTI futures, preserving an upwardly sloping futures curve known as “contango”. This made it more attractive for shale producers to sell forward their future production, enabling them to raise output.

That higher shale output will persist is borne out by a surge in the number of drilling rigs, which shows no signs of ebbing. The Energy Information Administration, an American government agency, reckons that by next year the United States will be producing 10m barrels of oil a day, above its recent high in April 2015. That would put it on a par with Russia and Saudi Arabia. Shale producers will have gained market share at their expense.

In response, the frustrated interventionists appear now to have set out to put the futures curve into “backwardation”, in which short-term prices are higher than long-term ones. The aim is to discourage the stockpiling of crude, as well as the habit of hedging. But success is not guaranteed.

The International Energy Agency, a forecasting body, said this week that, even if the OPEC/non-OPEC cuts are formally extended on May 25th, more work would need to be done in the second half of this year to cut inventories of crude to their five-year average, which is the stated goal of Messrs al-Falih and Novak. It also noted that Libya and Nigeria, two OPEC members not subject to the cuts because of difficult domestic circumstances, have sharply raised production recently, perhaps undercutting the efforts of their peers.
Moreover, global demand this year has been weaker than expected. In a report this week, Roland Berger, a consultancy, argued that rich-country oil demand has peaked, and that, as developing countries such as China and India industrialise, they will use oil more efficiently than did their developed-world counterparts (see chart). All this raises doubts about how far the oil price can climb.

Eventually, shale producers will have their comeuppance. Labour and equipment shortages will push up drilling costs. Higher interest rates will dampen investor enthusiasm. “Irrational exuberance” may lead them to produce so much that prices collapse. But for now, Saudi Arabia seems to be leading OPEC into a war it cannot win. As Pierre Lacaze, of LCMCommodities, a research firm, memorably puts it, it has taken “a knife to a gunfight”. Worse, it has wounded mostly itself.

[Just This Once...]

I am probably regarded as well informed and well read but I need help with this one. So would someone refresh me as to why the Iranian elected government is 'bad' whilst the Saudi dictatorship is 'good'?

Just want to know we are on the right side and wearing the correct colour of hat.

[4everAD]

I am probably regarded as well informed and well read but I need help with this one. So would someone refresh me as to why the Iranian elected government is 'bad' whilst the Saudi dictatorship is 'good'?

Just want to know we are on the right side and wearing the correct colour of hat.

Because one buys arms from us and the other doesn't!

[Lonewolf_50]

@JustThisOnce
Using the terms "bad" and "Good" is your first mistake in comprehension of the politics involved. "Useful" and "not currently in a pissing contest with one another" are more apt terms. Bottom line comes from the following adage: nations have interests more than friends. There are some unusual variations on that, but it is a useful lens through which to look at political choices.


Clementine Churchill: "General, you must not hate your friends more than you hate your enemies"; De Gaulle (in English): "France has no friends, only interests."

[Heathrow Harry]

The world is not really dependent on Iran for anything - Saudi on the other hand IS important to us - therefore it is in our interests to defend the status quo

Iran kicked out Western oil companies (twice!) - Saudi is hand in glove with them

Simple practical politics TBH

[Just This Once...]

I'm not sure why we depend on Saudi for anything. Even their prominent role in oil production is not what is was and the trend is down, along with human rights et al. Beheadings, floggings and oppression are all trending up

Iran has oil, is relatively cash rich but short on overseas investment after years of pre-nuclear treaty sanctions. For those that think in dollars the military equipment in Iran could do with a refresh, along with major infrastructure.

[Heathrow Harry]

Ah - but Saudi has oil for export - in very large quantities - Iran does export but is using more and more itself - it'll finish up like Indonesia which exports relatively little these days.

Plus the Saudis are sitting on enormous reserves

Without Saudi oil the Russians would be the swing producer............. not something to look forward to

[racedo]

In two and a half years of flip-flopping over how to deal with tumbling oil prices, OPEC has been consistent in one respect. It has underestimated the ability of shale-oil producers in America—its nemesis in the sheikhs-versus-shale battle—to use more efficient financial techniques to weather the storm of lower prices. A lifeline for American producers has been their ability to use capital markets to raise money, and to use futures and options markets to hedge against perilously low prices by selling future production at prices set by these markets. Only recently has the cartel woken up to the effectiveness of this strategy. It is not clear that it has found the solution.


More Voodoo Financial Betting from those who believed that selling Mortgages to NINJAs.................. No Income, No Job or Assets would be all sweetness and light.

[ORAC]

Kicking off all over the Gulf. If Saudi are concentrating on Qatar they'd better watch their flank.....

12 dead as Isis terrorists attack Iranian parliament and Ayatollah’s shrine (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/isis-terrorists-attack-iranian-parliament-and-ayatollah-s-shrine-vzpqdvtwh)

Islamic State claimed responsibility today for an assault on the heart of the Iranian Islamic republic, in which attackers killed 12 people as they stormed the national parliament and the shrine of the late supreme leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Security guards, members of the Revolutionary Guard and a gardener at the shrine were among those killed. The assailants, some dressed in the flowing black chador robes of Iranian women, were shot dead or blew themselves up, according to initial reports. That was only after some managed to enter the parliament’s administrative building, roaming the corridors and shooting people. Dramatic pictures showed workers and in some cases children, probably brought in to work by parents because of the Ramadan and summer holiday season, being lowered to the ground through open windows to escape.

Isis released a video on one of its affiliated news agencies, Amaq, apparently filmed by the attackers inside the parliament building. “Do you think we will leave? We will remain, God willing,” a voice is heard saying. “We will remain” is an Isis slogan, but has taken on a new significance as the group faces the loss of its territories in Iraq and Syria to a combination of US-backed groups, Iraqi and Syrian regime forces, and Iranian-backed militias.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, however, immediately accused Saudi Arabia of being behind the attack.

Last month, the kingdom’s deputy crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, warned that Iran was trying to take over the Middle East and threatened to take direct action. “We will not wait until the battle is in Saudi Arabia, but we will work so the battle is there in Iran,” he said. That was followed by a summit in Riyadh attended by President Trump in which Sunni Muslim nations heard calls to take on “Iran-backed terrorism”.

In a statement promising revenge, the Revolutionary Guard said: “This terrorist attack happened only a week after the meeting between the US president and the backward leaders who support terrorists. The fact that Islamic State has claimed responsibility proves that they were involved in the brutal attack.”

The attacks began mid-morning and were clearly co-ordinated. Four men assaulted the heavily protected parliament complex, killing four of the guards and injuring 25 other people immediately. A fifth person died later in hospital. The attackers then managed to enter the building, firing pistols and rifles and taking hostages, killing a further two members of the Revolutionary Guard and three others. One man came back out and started firing into the street, but was forced back inside by police. It took several hours before police and the Guard managed to control the situation, shooting all four attackers dead.

The Fars news agency said “three or four” other insurgents had attacked the mausoleum of Ayatollah Khomeini, the firebrand anti-western cleric brought to power by the 1979 revolution, who died in 1989.They opened fire, killing a gardener and one other and injuring a number of bystanders. One of the attackers, who was dressed as a woman, then triggered a suicide explosive vest. Photographs showed a large yellow flash outside the building.

Abdolrahman Fazli, the interior minister, said the country’s security council, which is headed by President Rouhani, had been summoned.

The attack outside on the crowd of onlookers suggested a sectarian element to the action. Isis promotes Sunni extremism, regarding Shia Muslims, the majority in Iran, as apostates. Al-Qaeda has rarely if ever carried out attacks against the Islamic Republic, a fact put down by many to the number of its members who fled to Iran from neighbouring Afghanistan in 2001, and remained there either at semi-liberty or under house arrest. The last major terrorist incident in Iran was a 2010 bomb attack on a mosque in Balochistan in the southeast of the country by a breakaway radical Sunni group, Jundullah.

There have been no attacks by Isis, which broke off from al-Qaeda in 2013 following a dispute over leadership of the group’s faction in the Syrian conflict. However, in March it issued a Persian-language video saying it was time to conquer the country and bring it within the Sunni fold.

[Lyneham Lad]

24 Hour Ultimatum! Saudi Arabia threatens Qatar to submit to list of demands or face war
https://theduran.com/24-hour-ultimatum-saudi-arabia-threatens-qatar-to-submit-or-else-face-war/

Turkish parliament approves troop deployment in Qatar
Turkish parliament approves troop deployment in Qatar | Qatar News | Al Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/06/turkey-fast-track-troops-deployment-qatar-170607151127104.html)

(Excuse the crude text/links, I am non too adept with my iPad Mini!)

[Lonewolf_50]

Now that's interesting: how are the Turks going to get their troops to Qatar?
We do indeed live in interesting times.

[Lordflasheart]

how are the Turks going to get their troops to Qatar?That's the easy bit Commander,

Qatar AF 'll give em a ride on their 8 C-17s into Al Udeid or Doha AFB

That way they'll be mostly outta'da'way in case anybody's shock and awe arrives.

PS - Free one way rides outta town on the outbound leg.

PPS - How does 'your' man handle being on both sides at the same time ?

Confusing innit ? .............. LFH

[racedo]

Now that's interesting: how are the Turks going to get their troops to Qatar?
We do indeed live in interesting times.

Reckon they have a few thousand there already and a surge of troops to protect their friends could happen quickly.

I fully expect Saudi's to attack, I also would expect Oman not to sit on sidelines and allow Saudi's free reign.

[tartare]

Interesting insights on the true levels of ability within the Saudi military from previous posters.
Given the kit they've got, the money they have and the support from the UK and US, I'd always assumed if it came to a war with Iran, the Saudis would crush the Iranians.
But then - reminded of the old stories of the Saudi fast-jet pilots who were too scared to fly their Lightnings...
So - if a shooting war broke out - God forbid - and the Saudis really were pushed back into an extreme corner by Iran - don't they have certain understandings with Pakistan to get their hands on certain ultimate pieces of military kit?
Even given the supposedly neutral to warm relationship on the surface between Pakistan and Iran.
The darkest conspiracists might even suggest that those pieces of kit may be in Saudi already?

[Lonewolf_50]

That's the easy bit Commander,

Qatar AF 'll give em a ride on their 8 C-17s into Al Udeid or Doha AFB

Through whose airspace? From turkey to Doha, how about you sketch me the route?

[Cazalet33]

Through Iran, from the Turkish border.

Easy enough for you to draw that line yourself.

[Ascend Charlie]

The Saudi helicopter war will last for about 23 minutes - 20 min to remember how to start the engine without their expat instructor prompting, then about 3 minutes to crash them.

[BEagle]

Capt. Ayed Al-Shamrani did pretty well in GW 1 ('The Honest Gulf War'). Flying an F-15C he took out 2 x Iraqi F-1s in 30 sec....

Rumour had it that he wasn't given much publicity in Saudi Arabia though, as he wasn't some Saudi Royal Family princeling :\. Just a line fighter pilot doing as he was trained and doing it well!

[Lonewolf_50]

Caz, an old lawyer friend of mine advises "don't ask a question you don't already have an answer to." I asked in part to smoke out the hand waivers and assumers. I've already looked at the map and saw a number of obstacles to easy movement of military personnel by air through airspace of other countries.
Why do you assume that Iran will give the green light to Turkey to move Turkish troops through their airspace to do this?
Have they done so in the past?
Iran has skin in this game: do they want the Turks to upstage them?

I don't make the assumption that there is an easy button in Ankara to push and off they go.
Perhaps the political arrangements are in place, perhaps not.
Part of what I am asking is about the unknown: is that political accord in place between Iran and Turkey, or not? I don't know, so now ask that explicitly. Do you know, or are you guessing?

[Green Flash]

I presume (happy to be corrected) that any Turkish involvement would be of the light infantry almost token force, force? Flying bodies down the Gulf is one thing but how do they bring all the heavy kit in and re-supply it?

[Cazalet33]

Iran has rather few friends in the GCC right now. Qatar is prettty much it.

If Turkey wants to help Qatar to fend off Saudi aggression, then Iran will quite certainly allow Turkish non-strike military aircraft free pratique to overfly Iranian airspace to access Qatari airspace.

Bahrain's nominal control of some Qatari airspace through the Bahrain FIR is not being abused by Bahrain and is most unlikely to be so.

Quite apart from anything else, it would be a trivially simple matter for Turkey to charter some civil aircraft to fly military men and materiel through Iranian airspace. No questions asked; no lies told. That sort of thing has been done before, y'know.;)

[Cazalet33]

Flying bodies down the Gulf is one thing but how do they bring all the heavy kit in and re-supply it?

By air, land and sea.

Iran has already said that they'll make Bandar Abbas, Bushir and Lengeh available as ports of transfer to Qatar. Heavy trucks can transport large cargoes from the Turkish border to those three ports. It's really not difficult at all.

[racedo]

Turkey has already a military base in Qatar for the last couple of years............. only house 150 at the moment.

As for Iran's GCC friends Oman is a good friend at the moment and given Saudi destabilising of Yemen they P****d off at KSA.

[ORAC]

And the escalation goes on. How long before they fire them at each other, and not their surrogates? And who will take the chance on what the warhead contains?

Alert 5 » Iran fired ballistic missiles at ISIL targets in Syria - Military Aviation News (http://alert5.com/2017/06/19/iran-fired-ballistic-missiles-at-isil-targets-in-syria/)

It was reported that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps has fired a number of ballistic missiles into Syria, targeting ISIL forces in the Deir Ezzor region in Eastern Syria.

Iran said the missile strikes were in retaliation for two attacks in Tehran on Jun. 7th. The missiles used in the attack have been identified as Zolfaqar solid-fueled missile with a range of 750km.

http://i.alalam.ir/news/Image/Inner-Media/2016/09/21/alalam_636100523455605347_25f_4x3.jpg

[racedo]

And the escalation goes on. How long before they fire them at each other, and not their surrogates? And who will take the chance on what the warhead contains?

Alert 5 » Iran fired ballistic missiles at ISIL targets in Syria - Military Aviation News (http://alert5.com/2017/06/19/iran-fired-ballistic-missiles-at-isil-targets-in-syria/)

It was reported that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps has fired a number of ballistic missiles into Syria, targeting ISIL forces in the Deir Ezzor region in Eastern Syria.

Iran said the missile strikes were in retaliation for two attacks in Tehran on Jun. 7th. The missiles used in the attack have been identified as Zolfaqar solid-fueled missile with a range of 750km.

http://i.alalam.ir/news/Image/Inner-Media/2016/09/21/alalam_636100523455605347_25f_4x3.jpg

Sending a clear message to KSA

[Lonewolf_50]

Sending a clear message to KSA
Yeah, and when combined with the recent F-18 shoot down of a Su-22, adds yet another factor in "there's all kinds of incoming in this area, please bring a helmet" added to daily life in northern and eastern Syria.

Interesting times, and getting more dangerous by the day.

[Cazalet33]

It was reported that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps has fired a number of ballistic missiles into Syria, targeting ISIL forces in the Deir Ezzor region in Eastern Syria.

Anybody know if any of those missiles landed anywhere near the proposed target?

Of 59 US cruise missiles supposedly fired at a Syrian airbase only 23 landed within the perimeter of the airfield. Nobody seems to know where the other 36 fell. I doubt that the Iranian score would have been as good as that.

[ORAC]

Of 59 US cruise missiles supposedly fired at a Syrian airbase only 23 landed within the perimeter of the airfield. Nobody seems to know where the other 36 fell. I doubt that the Iranian score would have been as good as that. The published US post-strike recce, including photos, shows all 59 out of 60* hit their assigned targets.

*One failed on launch and a replacement was fired.

[ORAC]

Anybody know if any of those missiles landed anywhere near the proposed target?

Drone videos of Iranian missiles hitting their targets in Syria (http://alert5.com/2017/06/20/drone-videos-of-iranian-missiles-hitting-their-targets-in-syria/)

[A_Van]

Anybody know if any of those missiles landed anywhere near the proposed target?
....



If properly maintained and operated, those latest Shahab type missiles have a not bad accuracy. At least good enough to be used against camps of "bad guys".

In case of interest you may read the following articles:

Iran launches missile strike into Syria in response to Tehran attacks | The Times of Israel (http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-launches-missile-strike-into-syria-for-tehran-attacks/)


Iran Launched A Salvo of Ballistic Missiles at ISIS (http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a26983/iran-launched-missiles-syria/)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahab-3

[West Coast]

Where do you get your information Caz? You seem to be Johnny on the spot with data on all things US, accuracy of which is dubious.

[ORAC]

'Close al-Jazeera': Saudi Arabia issues Qatar with 13 demands to end blockade (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/23/close-al-jazeera-saudi-arabia-issues-qatar-with-13-demands-to-end-blockade)

Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries that have cut ties to Qatar have issued a steep list of demands to end the crisis, insisting that their Persian Gulf neighbour close al-Jazeera, cut back diplomatic ties to Iran and sever all ties with the Muslim Brotherhood. In a 13-point list — presented to the Qataris by Kuwait, which is helping mediate the crisis — the countries also demand an end to Turkey’s military presence in Qatar. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the list in Arabic from one of the countries involved in the dispute......

Those countries have now given Qatar 10 days to comply with all of the demands, which include paying an unspecified sum in compensation. Qatari officials in Doha did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But the list included conditions that the gas-rich nation had already insisted would never be met, including shutting down al-Jazeera. Qatar’s government has said it won’t negotiate until Arab nations lift their blockade. The demands were also likely to elicit Qatari objections that its neighbours are trying to dictate its sovereign affairs by imposing such far-reaching requirements.

Only a day earlier, secretary of state Rex Tillerson had warned the demands must be “reasonable and actionable.” The US issued that litmus test amid frustration at how long it was taking Saudi Arabia and others to formalise a list of demands, complicating U.S. efforts to bring about a resolution to the worst Gulf diplomatic crisis in years.

According to the list, Qatar must refuse to naturalize citizens from the four countries and expel those currently in Qatar, in what the countries describe as an effort to keep Qatar from meddling in their internal affairs. They are also demanding that Qatar hand over all individuals who are wanted by those four countries for terrorism; stop funding any extremist entities that are designated as terrorist groups by the US; and provide detailed information about opposition figures that Qatar has funded, ostensibly in Saudi Arabia and the other nations. Qatar vehemently denies funding or supporting extremism. But the country acknowledges that it allows members of some extremist groups such as Hamas to reside in Qatar, arguing that fostering dialogue with those groups is key to resolving global conflicts.

Qatar’s neighbors have also accused it of backing al-Qaida and the Islamic State group’s ideology throughout the Middle East. Those umbrella groups also appear on the list of entities whose ties with Qatar must be extinguished, along with Lebanon’s Hezbollah and the al-Qaida branch in Syria, once known as the Nusra Front. More broadly, the list demands that Qatar align itself politically, economically and otherwise with the Gulf Cooperation Council, a regional club that has focused on countering the influence of Iran. Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-led nations have accused Qatar of inappropriately close ties to Iran, a Shiite-led country and Saudi Arabia’s regional foe.

The Iran provisions in the document say Qatar must shut down diplomatic posts in Iran, kick out from Qatar any members of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard, and only conduct trade and commerce with Iran that complies with U.S. sanctions. Under the 2015 nuclear deal, nuclear-related sanctions on Iran were eased but other sanctions remain in place. Cutting ties to Iran would prove incredibly difficult. Qatar shares a massive offshore natural gas field with Iran which supplies the small nation that will host the 2022 Fifa World Cup its wealth.

Not only must Qatar shut down the Doha-based satellite broadcaster, the list says, but also all of its affiliates. That presumably would mean Qatar would have to close down al-Jazeera’s English-language sister network. Supported by Qatar’s government, al-Jazeera is one of the most widely watched Arabic channels, but it has long drawn the ire of Mideast governments for airing alternative viewpoints.

[Lonewolf_50]

As an American, I am keen to see just what response our political sorts will have to this set of demands:
1. close al-Jazeera,
2. cut back diplomatic ties to Iran
3. sever all ties with the Muslim Brotherhood.
My opinion: (I wonder how Tillerson will respond ...)
(a) absolutely no to #1. Plenty of news organizations all over the world are a pain in a variety of backsides, but I see no reason to shut them down either. Consider the source. I have my own dislike of Al Jazeera, but I quite frankly find this demand to be unreasonable. (Not meeting Tillerson's criteria).
(b) I find that unreasonable. (I do understand why that demand is being made). Any sovereign nations gets to determine who it will or won't have embassies to and with.
(c) While I support that, how the heck do you enforce/measure compliance? Not only must Qatar shut down the Doha-based satellite broadcaster, the list says, but also all of its affiliates. That presumably would mean Qatar would have to close down al-Jazeera’s English-language sister network. Supported by Qatar’s government, al-Jazeera is one of the most widely watched Arabic channels, but it has long drawn the ire of Mideast governments for airing alternative viewpoints. Let's just say I see some "pot/kettle" stuff going on here. 0 for 3 in achieving Tillerson's criteria ... wonder if he'll read it the same way I do.
Analysis:
It seems (on the surface at least) that the Saudis are trying to drive Qatar into Iran's arms. While there is doubtless a variety of stuff going on under the table, this looks like a piece of Saudi over-reach.
We'll see.
OBTW: three words, for our dear Saudi friends: Al Freakin' Udeid. Do you really think we are going to just toss that into the trash can?

[racedo]

As an American, I am keen to see just what response our political sorts will have to this set of demands:
1. close al-Jazeera,
2. cut back diplomatic ties to Iran
3. sever all ties with the Muslim Brotherhood.
My opinion: (I wonder how Tillerson will respond ...)
(a) absolutely no to #1. Plenty of news organizations all over the world are a pain in a variety of backsides, but I see no reason to shut them down either. Consider the source. I have my own dislike of Al Jazeera, but I quite frankly find this demand to be unreasonable. (Not meeting Tillerson's criteria).
(b) I find that unreasonable. (I do understand why that demand is being made). Any sovereign nations gets to determine who it will or won't have embassies to and with.
(c) While I support that, how the heck do you enforce/measure compliance? Let's just say I see some "pot/kettle" stuff going on here. 0 for 3 in achieving Tillerson's criteria ... wonder if he'll read it the same way I do.
Analysis:
It seems (on the surface at least) that the Saudis are trying to drive Qatar into Iran's arms. While there is doubtless a variety of stuff going on under the table, this looks like a piece of Saudi over-reach.
We'll see.
OBTW: three words, for our dear Saudi friends: Al Freakin' Udeid. Do you really think we are going to just toss that into the trash can?

Oh these demands were never going to be met, shove as much unreasonable stuff in as possible and this is just the Prelude before the attack.

[unmanned_droid]

Hmm, I see that Qatar have refused to meet any of the demands

BBC Article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-40391224)

The Trump accuses Qatar of being a high level funder of terrorism (not presumably a brand new opinion), and the close alignment between Qatar and Iran is obvious, so why would the US agree to sell up to 75 F-15QAs (36 is the current order level)?

Flight Global Article (non paywall) on F-15QA Production (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-production-for-qatar-f-15s-could-stretch-int-438331/)

Then the state owned flag carrier Qatar Airlines makes an unsolicited bid for a stake in American Airlines?

Flight Global Article (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/qatar-makes-unsolicited-offer-for-stake-in-american-438720/)

These seem to indicate to me a very high level of entropy when combined with the demands of KSA and mates.

Already high levels of entropy seem to me to drive entropy higher non-linearly.

[Heathrow Harry]

And the Saudi King has apointed his son as heir .......... the one who got them into the Yemen...................

[ORAC]

Qatar and Turkey refusing to back down - and in the Arab world face and respect is everything. 3rd July is going to be interesting...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/25/erdogan-rejects-saudi-demand-to-pull-turkish-troops-out-of-qatar

"Turkey’s president has described as disrespectful a demand by Saudi Arabia and its allies that it withdraw its troops from Qatar as a step towards ending a deepening dispute with the besieged Gulf state.

Two days after the demand was made, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan instead reiterated his support for Qatar and described the 13 demands levelled at the Gulf country as preconditions to restore relations as being “against international law”.

“To ask Turkey to pull out its troops from Qatar is firstly disrespectful behaviour towards us,” he said in Istanbul on the first day of a three-day holiday to mark the end of Ramadan. “We don’t need permission from anyone to establish military bases among partners. We endorse and appreciate Qatar’s stance towards the 13 demands. It’s a very, very ugly approach to try to interfere with our agreement.”

Sharply escalating the worst diplomatic crisis among Gulf allies in decades, the Saudi led-alliance on Friday gave Qatar 10 days to comply with a list of demands, which included closing the state-funded broadcasting network, al-Jazeera, scaling back contact with Iran, removing Turkish troops from its soil and severing ties with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Qatar has said it will not comply with the demands, and Erdoğan’s endorsement appeared to entrench Doha’s position – setting the scene for a showdown on 3 July.".....

[6000PIC]

Threats , isolation , humiliation , face saving and ultimatums will only lead to one thing - conflict. The leadership in these parts think very different from most other countries in the world such as the Western liberal democracies , even China and Russia , and as such will undertake military action without much hesitation merely due to the lack of mutual assured destruction. It`s going to be a hot summer in the desert.

[A_Van]

6000PIC,


Indeed, but at the moment I yet believe that "Uncle Sam" (well, "Uncle Donald" and his men) will not allow all these medieval regimes to get unleashed and tear each other apart. And though they (regimes) are an obvious threat to the christian civilization (whatever it is), the best way to get them out is stop feeding them.
Where is controlled nuclear fusion that would put all their hydrocarbon stuff off the scene? These words are on air since 50's and still no tangible results.

[MPN11]

Meanwhile, as many of you may know, British Airways is trying to wet-lease Qatar Airways aircraft to alleviate the problems it faces from yet another Cabin Crew strike ...

BA apply to CAA to operate Qatari Airbus during strikes - FlyerTalk Forums (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/1849608-ba-apply-caa-operate-qatari-airbus-during-strikes.html)

Nothing works in isolation these days, especially when Qatar owns a large slice of BA ;)

[ORAC]

The supposition has always been that the Saudi Chinese built IRBMs up on the plateau have Pakistani nuke warheads on them (Saudi reputedly funded their entire programme on a quid pro quo basis). The satellite photos show all the launch site markings indicate they are aimed east rather than west.

Now it looks like they are being a little more open about it...

We will get Bomb too if Iran has one, Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman warns (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-will-get-bomb-too-if-iran-has-one-saudi-crown-prince-mohammed-bin-salman-warns-pxlzzsl53)

Saudi Arabia’s powerful and outspoken crown prince has threatened a new arms race in the Middle East, saying that if Iran developed a nuclear weapon he would seek one too.

Prince Mohammed bin Salman has already joined forces with President Trump, who has strongly backed his assertive rule in the kingdom, to argue for a stronger posture against Iran, Saudi Arabia’s long-time regional and sectarian rival. Now in an interview to be broadcast this weekend with CBS, the US television network, the prince replied aggressively to a question about the Iran nuclear programme. “Saudi Arabia does not want to acquire any nuclear bomb, but without a doubt if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible.”....

The interview was recorded before the prince’s visit to Britain last week, and therefore before Mr Tillerson was sacked. However, it serves as additional pressure on Iran to make compromises when faced with Mr Pompeo’s tough rhetoric. In it, the prince compares Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Iranian supreme leader, to Hitler, on the basis that the West stood by and allowed both to extend their power and influence unchecked. “He wants to create his own project in the Middle East, very much like Hitler who wanted to expand at the time,” he says.

“Many countries around the world and in Europe did not realise how dangerous Hitler was until what happened, happened. I don't want to see the same events happening in the Middle East.” He himself has previously threatened that in future the struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran “would be waged inside Iran”.....

Riyadh is currently negotiating American support for a civil nuclear power programme as a way of diversifying the kingdom away from reliance on oil for energy. Rick Perry, the US energy secretary, led a delegation to meet the prince in London last week to discuss Saudi Arabia's desire for nuclear power plants, which could be worth $80 billion to US companies providing the technology.

But previous such offers, including with Saudi Arabia’s close Gulf ally the United Arab Emirates, have included tight commitments that in return for being given nuclear technology the recipients will not seek to develop their own uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing programmes, of the sort needed for nuclear weapons.

Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, strongly argued against Saudi Arabia being allowed to develop these technologies, during a separate visit to Washington this month, according to reports.

[Ascend Charlie]

Let's just stand back and let these squabbling arab tribes settle their differences by themselves, as they have been doing for over 1000 years, and then sell the glowing desert glass as cheap jewellery when it is over.

[Heathrow Harry]

And how do we get to the oil located under this glowing desert glass pray??

Mr Putin would be ecstatic.......

[Fareastdriver]

Just dig a hole. t will still be down there.

[Ascend Charlie]

And how do we get to the oil located under this glowing desert glass pray??

Break it into small pieces and sell it as cheap jewellery. And the oil is in a hole beneath that.

Do I have to think of EVERYTHING?? (Tips hat to Lloyd Bridges)

[Heathrow Harry]

Just dig a hole. t will still be down there.

Ah.. our first volunteer to be on the drilling rig....:cool:

[jimjim1]

ORAC mentioned -

Riyadh is currently negotiating American support for a civil nuclear power programme as a way of diversifying the kingdom away from reliance on oil for energy. Rick Perry, the US energy secretary, led a delegation to meet the prince in London last week to discuss Saudi Arabia's desire for nuclear power plants, which could be worth $80 billion to US companies providing the technology.

There is only one justification for Saudi Arabia wanting a Nuclear Industry and it has nothing to do with power generation. They want a nuclear weapons industry.

The price of solar cells has fallen, continues to fall and is certain to fall much further in the short term and far into the future. Today Solar power costs are already lower than Nuclear and are guaranteed to fall in the future as global production of cells increases.

Saudi, one of the sunniest places on earth is particularly well suited to the use of large scale solar power. There is no shortage of land either.

The risks of a Nuclear industry in the powder keg that is the middle East are enormous, ranging from simple accidents, military intervention causing the release of nuclear materials, the theft of nuclear materials and the production of nuclear weapons.

Solar cells are made from sand - the raw material is very cheap. All the cost is in the processing and we are getting better at that as production rises rapidly.

There is no reason to do anything other than to use every tool available to discourage the construction of a Nuclear reactor in Saudi.

How cheap are these?
"In the spring of 2016 a winning bid of 2.99 US cents per kilowatt-hour of photovoltaic solar energy was achieved for the next (800MW capacity) phase of the Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid solar farm in Dubai."[1]

"In October 2017, Saudi Arabia announced a further low contract price to provide solar power for $17.90 per MWh."[1][2] That is 1.79 US cents a kWh (or "unit" as we say in the UK).


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
[2] https://cleantechnica.com/2017/10/07/the-birth-of-a-new-era-in-solar-pv-record-low-cost-on-saudi-solar-project-bid/

[Lonewolf_50]

The price of solar cells has fallen, continues to fall and is certain to fall much further in the short term and far into the future. Today Solar power costs are already lower than Nuclear and are guaranteed to fall in the future as global production of cells increases. A problem the Saudis area having with their solar farms, which are extensive (http://www.sunwindenergy.com/news/35-mw-solar-farm-saudi-arabia-completed), is dust. It reduces the figure of merit of their solar panels.
Saudi, one of the sunniest places on earth is particularly well suited to the use of large scale solar power. There is no shortage of land either. They are already doing it, and are running in to a variety of snags. (They already figured out that their sunshine is an asset ...)
The risks of a Nuclear industry in the powder keg that is the middle East are enormous, ranging from simple accidents, military intervention causing the release of nuclear materials, the theft of nuclear materials and the production of nuclear weapons. The NPT was put together a bit over 50 years ago due to the risks of the nuclear arms issue, so you are a bit late to the show. It has had mixed success.
Solar cells are made from sand - the raw material is very cheap. All the cost is in the processing and we are getting better at that as production rises rapidly. One of the funniest little things I tripped over in post graduate studies was that, in the 80's, American companies were selling sand to Middle Eastern countries for their fiber optic cables/infrastructure. Not all sand is alike, down at the granular level.
There is no reason to do anything other than to use every tool available to discourage the construction of a Nuclear reactor in Saudi. I disagree. Nuclear power is part of the better idea of power generation. My worry about the Saudis and nuclear power is "where do you get the water to cool it?" and of course security of the plant itself.
There are some very good bits of public information regarding Saudis and solar energy (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/07/saudis-solar-energy/395315/).
Some of Saudi Arabia’s most prominent industrial firms, as well as international electricity producers and solar companies big and small, have lined up to profit from what they see as a major new market. The fact that Saudi Arabia, an ardent booster of fossil fuels, has found compelling economic reasons to bet on solar is one of the clearest signs yet that solar, at least in some cases, has become a cost-effective source of power.

But the Saudis’ grand plan has been slow to materialize. The reasons include bureaucratic infighting; technical hurdles, notably dust storms and sandstorms that can quickly slash the amount of electricity a solar panel produces; and, most important, the petroleum subsidies that shield Saudi consumers from any real pressure to use less oil. The kingdom is a fossil-fuel supertanker, and though the captain knows that dangerous seas lie ahead, changing course is proving exceedingly hard.
It's not an either / or deal with nuclear power. Solar has a variety of shortcomings. It is smart to have both sources to keep the grid up.

[EAP86]

LW50, far too sensible. Don't you know this isn't allowed on PPRUNE?

EAP

[Lonewolf_50]

@EAP86: sorry, lost the plot there for a moment. I'll straighten up and fly right. :)

[ORAC]

Daily Telegraph: Saudi Canal “to Turn Qatar into an Island”

Saudi Arabia intends to literally carve up the Arabian Peninsula to spite it’s tiny neighbour Qatar, inviting companies to construct a canal that would turn the emirate into an island, according to Saudi media reports.

The kingdom, which has led a blockade on Qatar for more than a year, has invited 5 companies to bid for the project, Makkah newspaper has reported, adding that a Saudi military base would be built in the kilometre-deep buffer zone between the future “Salwa Canal” and Qatar.

The project had first been floated in the kingdom’s media in April, when the Saudi-owned broadcaster said the 37 mile by 220 yard wide canal would include a tourist resort, a military base...... and a nuclear waste dump......