Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Saudi Arabia Proxy Wars: Past and Present

 This oped piece feels like the perfect follow up to yesterday's post -Israel Sides with Syrian Jihadists
Different author. Same theme.

Saudi Arabia appears resolute: It wants Bashar Al-Assad out of Damascus. The Saudis view the fighting in Syria with the same intensity that they did the civil war in Yemen that raged in the 1960s—as a conflict with wide and serious repercussions that will shape the political trajectory of the Middle East for years to come.

The Syrian war presents the Saudis with a chance to hit three birds with one stone: Iran, its rival for regional dominance, Tehran’s ally Assad and his Hezbollah supporters. But Riyadh’s policy makers are wary. They know that once fully committed, it will be difficult to disengage. And so they are taking to heart the lessons of another regional war that flared on their border 50 years ago.

As mentioned yesterday clearly Saudi Arabia and Israel have common interests & common goals regarding Syria. Hence the tag team approach.
The war in Yemen that broke out in 1962 when military leaders ousted the centuries-old monarchy and declared a republic quickly turned into a quagmire that sucked in foreign powers. The Soviet Union provided the new regime with air support. British airstrikes aided the royalists and the United States offered warplanes in a symbolic show of force.
My how history repeats itself.............. Strange that the US, as an alleged republic, wouldn't support a fledgling republic, instead bolstering what was most likely a despotic monarchy.

More than anything else though, the conflict became a proxy war between Saudi Arabia, which backed the deposed imam and his royalist supporters, and Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, who supported the new republic. Nasser’s vision of a united Arab “nation” free of Western domination and sterile monarchies resonated across the Arab world. The Saudi monarchy, wary of this republican fever on its border, decided it was not going to stand on the sidelines. The kingdom used all available means to try to check Nasser’s ambitions—but it did not send troops.
And wasn't it the adherents of the Muslim Brotherhood that tried to kill Nasser?
More then once, with the help of Israel : Israel loves Islamists.

By some estimates, Egypt sent as many as 55,000 troops to Yemen, some of whom became involved in fighting well inside Saudi territory, while others were accused of using chemical weapons supplied by the Soviet Union. Saudi Arabia provided money and weapons to the royalists. (With Britain and the US on side)Yet neither side achieved its goals. Egypt’s war with Israel in 1967 led Nasser to withdraw his forces, but the Saudis were unable to turn the tide. Riyadh was eventually forced to recognize Yemen’s republican government.

Now as then, Riyadh sees the struggle in Syria as a defining moment. As the leader of the Sunni Muslim world, it perceives an opportunity to check what it sees as Iranian plans to encircle the kingdom with hostile Shiite-dominated regimes. As the war has taken on a more sectarian character, the usually reserved foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, has described Assad’s onslaught against his own people as “genocide” and Syrian lands as being “under occupation”—a clear reference to the presence of Iranian and Hezbollah forces.
It is no secret that the Saudis are supplying elements of the Syrian opposition with weapons. They all but admitted as much when the prince said a few weeks ago that “if the international community is not willing to do anything, then they must allow Syrians to defend themselves.”

The Saudis will use all tools available to oust Assad, while taking measures to ensure that the weapons they’re supplying to the rebels do not fall into the hands of extremists. (Nice spin by the author, but, not true. SA is delivering weapons to extremists)Nevertheless, following the chemical attack on civilians near Damascus last month, the Saudi foreign minister spoke candidly about the inability of the Arab nations to put a stop to Assad’s campaign through force of arms, adding that any military effort to do so would likely involve actors outside the region. Recent suggestions that the Arab League should assemble a military force to check Assad’s aggression do not seem viable. Disagreements among the league’s member nations have prevented it from agreeing to even endorse a potential U.S. strike.

But on Monday, the Saudi Council of Ministers issued a strong statement making clear that it considered preventing another chemical attack by Assad to be only a short-term goal. In the long-term, he must be ousted. (An agenda that works for Israel)

Saudi Arabia will intensify its efforts to arm the rebels and to use its media outlets and diplomatic clout to rally support for a military strike. Although the kingdom is known for using its troops sparingly, it has done so judiciously in the past. Riyadh did, for example, send troops to Bahrain to show its support for the Sunni regime in the face of extended mass protests. Of course, Syria is not Bahrain, but neither is Saudi Arabia the same country that it was in the 1960s, when it failed to achieve its goals in Yemen.

The oil-rich kingdom of today wields far greater influence than it did half a century ago. There is no question that it will wield that influence forcefully, supporting the rebels with guns and diplomacy as it struggles to outmaneuver Iran, outflank Hezbollah and oust Assad.
Also: the battle rages on in Maaloua


  1. the incident in Kenya is most interesting and there will be a post forthcoming
    clearly, there are similarities that many of us have noticed before
    patterns, lets say, patterns

    1. Well, here is some stuff for your story Penny.

      Was this a false flag as cover for the assasination with Mossad in on it??? Mall is israeli owned...


      israeli special forces. ya, there just such the humanitarians... not. Why would Kenya call for assistance from a foreign military for a domestic issue??


      Looks to be a targeted assasination of the Presidents fiancee and his nephew. Why are these deaths not the headline?? This would be the big story if it was not burried. BBC just mentions it in passing like it was a non-event. They headline a popular TV and radio personality but not the Presidents fiancee??? come on.


      Tyler Hicks just happen to be at the scene??? again!!!! Now looking at the pictures in the below link something I noticed right away. Lighting. I know a little bit about lighting as I used to manufacture special lighting and power distribution equipment for many of the major movie studios in southern California. All of these pictures were sets. This is not lighting from normal mall lights. Shadows show evidence of diffusers being used. Highlights on targets are too accurated to be coincedence. Way too much fill lighting to be just real world lights. Color temperature is a dead give away. Not to mention security is not going to let a press agent watch and be right in the middle of it all.


      "Onlookers are teargassed by police trying to disperse idlers who had milled around the shopping mall" - can't have any witnesses.


      "Several cafes and restaurants within the complex are Israeli-owned, including the ground-floor Artcaffe, the apparent entry point for the assault by the eight armed militants."

      "Mossad, the Israeli foreign intelligence service, reportedly has an outpost in Nairobi whose task is to maintain ties with Kenya and other East African countries. ... Israeli officials denied any military forces were engaged on the ground, saying only that they were helping to advise the Kenyans."


      continue on next post...

    2. continued from above

      so why??? it is another pipelinestan thing.



      "Western oil firms mostly shun South Sudan, a war-torn country which seceded from Sudan in 2011 after decades of conflict with Khartoum." - this is not true. western oil companies were shut out by the competition(China)


      "China has welcomed the president of South Sudan and agreed to provide bank loans and humanitarian aid, but it has stopped short of moving forward on an oil pipeline, a sign of the delicate position Beijing finds itself in as the biggest energy investor in both the new nation of South Sudan and its bitter foe, Sudan. " - the main reason for no oil deal yet is due to terrorism in the area


      So the history goes that China wins the oil in Sudan. Western intel starts a civil war and splits the country to control flow. China tries to go around this to go through Samalia. Whoops too much attacking going on there so lets
      build a route through Kenya. Opps, massad central. Now the drones and JDAMS will come to the rescue in Kenya and Somalia... again. Will Djibouti be a path?? Probably not as it is US controlled already.

      So, western intel gets a twofer in shutting down oil flow from S. Sudan and gets to send a big warning to Kenya not to talk to China. What was that brent/wti spread again??!!!!!

      although it could just be a crazy muslim thing... ?

  2. Massive quake in Baluchistan. Few days ago Russians offered to fund the IPI. Pak PM taking the drone issue to UN....

    Algeria flashing red ahead of 2014 elections. AQ "strategy" manifesto specifically calls out Algeria (and presumably its vast energy resources - the . New US drone base in Niger.

    Kenya: Nairobi airport fire a week before Kenyatta went off to Russia and China & a surprise mineral tax hike. [Congo blast in Brazzaville: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazzaville_arms_dump_blasts]

    Kenya, Israel's forward base in Africa

    George Saitoti

  3. British 'terrorists' in Kenya actually work for private security firm. Initial reports had suggested that they could be Britons trying to join the militant group al-Shabaab in Somalia.

  4. aren't you guys good!
    this mall story smells
    very bad
    and you have left some very useful stuff for my post

  5. If I don't get the Kenya stuff up today, really busy,, it will be tomorrow
    but am working on it
    It's likely going to go very long
    but you can take it!

  6. US is a one party system: before Obama; back in 2007 US under Bush was backing islamic terrorists in syria even then

    'The Bush administration has admitted that covert actions of an aggressive nature were applied against Iran and Syria. The stated objective was to wreck the countries’ economies and currency systems. The infamous Iran-Syria Policy and Operations Group (ISOG) created in early 2006, integrated by officials from the White House, the State Department, the CIA and the Treasury Department, had a mandate to destabilize Syria and Iran, and bring about “Regime Change” :'


    imagine if Syria backed terrorism in USA? look what US did to afghanistan just for harborng Osama