Shakeup in the Saudi Regime

Just in case you wonder how wise it is to have made a $300 billion weapons deal with our "Allies."

http://theduran.com/disastrous-rise-mohammed-bin-salman/

Alexander Mercouris51 mins ago 1 99
, ,
The appointment of Prince Mohammed bin Salman as Saudi Crown Prince brings a reckless and inexperienced young man who talks of a pre-emptive war against Iran closer to untrammelled power.

King Salman of Saudi Arabia has now appointed his 31 year old grandson Prince Mohammed bin Salman his Crown Prince, ousting his nephew, former Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, who had previously supervised Saudi Arabia’s security forces, and who is credited by some people with defeating the challenge within Saudi Arabia that extreme Wahhabi terrorists connected to Al-Qaeda posed to the ruling family.

King Salman is 81 and said to be in poor health. If so, and if all goes to plan, that could mean that Prince Mohammed bin Salman might be King of Saudi Arabia very soon, possibly within months.

That is an alarming prospect. I have already explained of how Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s economic programme has lost all touch with reality, and of how his foreign policy is amateurish and reckless, involving Saudi Arabia in a disastrous war in Yemen and a pointless and unnecessary conflict with Qatar in which it is losing the support of the US.

I have also explained how Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s pathological hostility to Iran, against whom he has openly spoken of launching a pre-emptive war, is increasing the risk of an all-out war between the two most powerful Muslim states in the Middle East.

Already there seem to be insufficient restraints on Prince Mohammed bin Salman. His grandfather King Salman obviously dotes on him, and he appears to be surrounded by a claque of young Princes who think of him as their champion and who are encouraging him in all the reckless things he is doing. If or when he becomes King such restraints as there still are on him will weaken further, and the present disastrous trajectory on which he is leading Saudi Arabia will accelerate.

At this point I should say that the latest incidents involving Iran – the terrorist attack launched by ISIS on 7th June 2017 against the Iranian Parliament building and Ayatollah Khomeini’s mausoleum, the Iranian ballistic missile strikes on ISIS in Syria, and the very strange episode of the arrest by Saudi Arabia of three Iranians in a boat whom Saudi Arabia accuses of being Revolutionary Guards intent on sabotaging Saudi oil facilities – have all the appearance of being caused by the rising tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran connected to the rise of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

To be clear, there is no doubt the 7th June 2017 terrorist attack in Tehran was the work of ISIS (both ISIS and the Iranians say as much, and the details of the incident put the question beyond doubt), and ISIS obviously has its own reasons for wanting to launch such a terrorist attack in Tehran independently of Saudi Arabia’s wishes.

However coming at a time of rising tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran, it could be that the Tehran attack – though obviously carefully planned over a long period of time – was intended to stoke up tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran further, with Iranian and Shia opinion – and indeed opinion across the whole Middle East – blaming the rise of Jihadi terrorism and ultimately of ISIS on Saudi Arabia.

As it happens there have already been allegations of Saudi involvement in the attack from senior Iranian officials. For example Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps has said

We have precise intelligence showing that unfortunately, Saudi Arabia in addition to supporting the terrorists, has demanded them to conduct operations in Iran

Whilst Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah has also elliptically pointed a finger at Saudi Arabia, saying that the Tehran attack bore the hallmarks of an “international destructive plan”.

In light of this Iran’s ballistic missile strikes on ISIS positions in Syria on Sunday look as if they were intended more as a demonstration to Saudi Arabia of Iran’s ability to strike at Saudi installations – including Saudi oil installations – than as a strike at ISIS.

Unlike Russia Iran is unlikely to have sufficient real time intelligence of the situation in eastern Syria to target fast moving ISIS targets effectively with ballistic missiles. As an attack on ISIS the Iranian ballistic missile strikes are therefore unlikely to have done ISIS much damage. However as a demonstration to Saudi Arabia of Iran’s capabilities, and of Iran’s ability to strike at Saudi installations, the missile strikes convey a powerful message, though not one that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman seems in any mood to heed.

As for the strange episode of the alleged sabotage attack by Iranian Revolutionary Guards on Saudi oil installations, it is possible that this was a genuine attempt at sabotage intended to send a warning simultaneously with the ballistic missile attacks. However it is difficult to believe that three boat loads of explosives could have done much damage to one of the world’s biggest oil industries and one whose installations are moreover tightly guarded. The Iranians allege that the three individuals the Saudis have arrested are fishermen, and it is not inconceivable that they are right.

If so then the announcement of the arrests could be another case of Prince Mohammed bin Salman inventing one of his imaginary victories by having Saudi Arabia misrepresent on Sunday – the day of the Iranian ballistic missile strikes – the arrest on Friday of three Iranian fishermen whose boat strayed accidentally into Saudi waters as Saudi Arabia’s successful defeat of a sinister Iranian attempt to sabotage its oil industry.

Regardless of what exactly happened, all the indications are that with Prince Mohammed bin Salman becoming more and more powerful the situation in the Gulf is becoming increasingly dangerous and unstable, with the threat of all-out war between Saudi Arabia and Iran increasing by the day.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman would be beyond foolish to start such a war. One of the most interesting moments of the Putin Interviews came when Oliver Stone pointed out to Putin that Saudi Arabia actually outspends Russia on defence. Russia is however a nuclear superpower with large and exceptionally effective armed forces second in power only to those of the US and comparable (though differently configured) to those of China. By contrast Saudi Arabia’s bloated military cannot even defeat the lightly armed Houthi militia in Yemen.

Whilst Iran’s armed forces are not comparable to Russia’s, everything that is known about them suggests that by Middle East standards they are both well-disciplined and highly effective.

In the case of an all-out war between Saudi Arabia and Iran Saudi Arabia would lose. The risk is that the colossal disruption to the oil market such a war would cause would draw in outside powers – first and foremost the US – and that Prince Mohammed bin Salman might in the meantime try to compensate for the weakness of Saudi Arabia’s conventional forces by acquiring nuclear weapons.

Regardless of his exact plans, the rise of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman – inexperienced and reckless as he has repeatedly shown himself to be – is possibly the single most dangerous and destabilising development in the current already fraught international situation, with ramifications which go far beyond the confines of the Gulf and the Middle East.

 

Some may find this article of interest. It's an Iranian source so it could be "fake Iranian news." Probably some truth mixed with some propaganda.

http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13960401000674

Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz announced on Wednesday his decision to replace Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef bin Abdulaziz with his own son, Mohammed bin Salman.

After the decision was announced, the Israeli air force sent 18 of its fighter jets, including F16I, F15CD and F16CD, along with two Gulfstream aircraft, two tanker airplanes and two C130 planes, special for electronic warfare, to Saudi Arabia at the demand of the new crown prince bin Salman to block his cousin (bin Nayef)'s possible measures.

According to a royal decree, Mohammed bin Salman, 31, was also named deputy prime minister, and shall maintain his post as defense minister, the official Saudi Press Agency (SPA) reported on Wednesday.

Saudi media announced that King Salman has called for a public pledge of allegiance to the new crown prince in the holy city of Mecca on Wednesday night.

The SPA also confirmed that 31 out of 34 members of Saudi Arabia’s succession committee chose Mohammed bin Salman as the crown prince.

Just days ago, the Saudi king stripped Nayef of his powers overseeing criminal investigations and designated a new public prosecution office to function directly under the king’s authority.

In a similar move back in 2015, the Saudi king had appointed his nephew, then deputy crown prince Mohammed bin Nayef as the heir to the throne after removing his own half-brother Prince Muqrin bin Abdulaziz Al Saud from the position.

Under the new decree, King Salman further relieved Mohammed bin Nayef of his duties as the interior minister. He appointed Prince Abdulaziz bin Saud bin Nayef as the new interior minister and Ahmed bin Mohammed Al Salem as deputy interior minister.

Mohammed Bin Salman is already in charge of a vast portfolio as chief of the House of Saud royal court and chairman of the Council for Economic and Development Affairs, which is tasked with overhauling the country’s economy.

The young prince was little known both at home and abroad before Salman became king in January 2015.

However, King Salman has significantly increased the powers of Mohammed, with observers describing the prince as the real power behind his father’s throne.

The power struggle inside the House of Saud came to light earlier this year when the Saudi king began to overhaul the government and offered positions of influence to a number of family members.

In two royal decrees in April, the Saudi king named two of his other sons, Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman and Prince Khaled bin Salman, as state minister for energy affairs and ambassador to the United States, respectively.

Late April, media source disclosed that Mohammad bin Salman has literally bribed the new US administration by paying $56m to Donald Trump.

According to reports, bin Salman is paying off the US to buy its support for finding a grip over the crown.

"Since Uncle Sam's satisfaction is the first step for the Saudi princes to get on the crown, paying off Washington seems to be a taken-for-granted fact," Rami Khalil, a reporter of Naba' news website affiliated to the Saudi dissidents wrote.

He added that since the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) is like a sword over the head of the al-Saud, they have no way out but to bribe the US, noting that the Yemen quagmire is also another reason for Riyadh to seek Washington's support.

Also, a prominent Yemeni analyst said earlier this month that the US has been paid several trillion dollars by Saudi Arabia to protect its crown, adding that Riyadh has recently bribed Washington's support for the Yemen war with $200bln.

"Washington has asked for more money to defend the Saudi regime and Riyadh has recently paid $200bln to the US for the costs of its support for the war in Yemen," Saleh al-Qarshi told FNA.

"This is apart from the huge amounts of money that Saudi Arabia pays to the US treasury for protecting its crown," he added.

According to al-Qarshi, former Saudi Intelligence Chief Turki al-Feisal revealed last year that his country has bought the low-profit US treasury bonds to help the US economy.

As the defense minister, Mohammed bin Salman has faced strong international criticism for the bloody military campaign he launched against neighboring Yemen in 2015 amid his rivalry with bin Nayef, the then powerful interior minister.

Saudi Arabia has been striking Yemen since March 2015 to restore power to fugitive president Mansour Hadi, a close ally of Riyadh. The Saudi-led aggression has so far killed at least 14,000 Yemenis, including hundreds of women and children.

The World Health Organization (WHO) in Yemen also announced that more than a thousand Yemenis have died of cholera since April 2017 as Saudi Arabia's deadly campaign prevented the patients from travelling abroad for treatment and blocked the entry of medicine into the war-torn country, continues hitting residential areas across Yemen.

Despite Riyadh's claims that it is bombing the positions of the Ansarullah fighters, Saudi bombers are flattening residential areas and civilian infrastructures.

According to several reports, the Saudi-led air campaign against Yemen has drove the impoverished country towards humanitarian disaster.

Nearly 3.3 million Yemeni people, including 2.1 million children, are currently suffering from acute malnutrition. The Al-Saud aggression has also taken a heavy toll on the country’s facilities and infrastructure, destroying many hospitals, schools, and factories.

The WHO now classifies Yemen as one of the worst humanitarian emergencies in the world alongside Syria, South Sudan, Nigeria and Iraq.

 

Hey Mus, I want to get your thoughts on this very interesting quagmire...

Who's going to control Raqqa once ISIS is driven out? Not so much who has the right (I'm sure your answer would be Assad regime forces), but who will do so?

Syrian regime forces (backed by Iran and Russia), Syrian rebel forces (backed by Turkey), or Syrian Democratic forces (Kurds and Arab fighters backed by U.S.)?

All three competing armies are in the area and nobody wants either of the other two taking control.

Looks like the Syrian Democratic Forces have the dominant position surrounding the town and will be the primary force in the assault.

Articles I've read from Middle Eastern sources say it's most likely gonna be controlled by a mix of Arab and Kurdish councils from the Syrian Democratic Forces.

If so, both Erdogan and Assad will be pissed. Erdogan's hate for the Kurds may even trump Assad's anger over not regaining control of his own liberated major city.

 

Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor or the two major cities in Eastern Syria. As you said, there is currently a race between the Syrian Army supported by Hezbollah and Russia, and the Kurds (FSA) supported by the US. Complicating the matter for the Kurds is that Turkey has begun to attack the Kurds.

I have read in multiple places that the US is building bases and air fields in Syria and gives every indication they aren't going anywhere once ISIS is defeated (sovereignty only matters in Ukraine, not Syria). Interestingly, Turkey has just made an agreement with Russia to purchase the S-400 missile system. Could it be that Turkey fears future air strikes from the US?

Israel is trying very hard to destroy any peace deal and is egging on the US to escalate. Israel hopes to expand its influence and presence in the Golan Heights and does not want to see Hezbollah strengthen Syria's border area.

I don't know what will happen. I don't think the peace agreement will last, I don't know whether Syria or the Kurds will gain the upper hand in Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor, nor do I know if the US would go against the wishes of Israel and simply get the hell out.

My best guess is some kind of quagmire will drag on for years, Turkey will eventually be kicked out of NATO and align more closely with Russia, and the Kurds will be attacked from all sides and eventually abandoned by the US once they no longer serve the purposes of the neocons.

 

No doubt the Syrian conflict in general will drag out for years, but one force will have to occupy and take control of Raqqa once liberated.

I can't see a shared control or co-existence scenario. Highly unlikely the SDF would move aside after doing all the heavy lifting in battle and suffering the bulk of the casualties.

I wonder if a competing force will try to horn in on the assault in order to make a claim for control after. Or maybe hang back and still demand SDF turn it over.

My understanding is Assad's forces controlled it last before fleeing from ISIS. Maybe they'll demand its return.

Pretty interesting how the round robin is in close quarters right there.

 

I think the Kurds would be smart to remain part of Syria, but negotiate for local autonomy. Anything more than that and they'll be under seige from every direction. Any "Kurdistan" would be land locked and face a hostile Syria to the West, a hostile Turkey to the North, and a hostile Iraq to the Southeast. I don't see how the US would want to support any part of that mess, and for what benefit?

Edit: The Kurds only make up about a 10-15% of the population in Syria, and in the region they wish to control, there is also a non-Kurd Arab presence that does not want to see a Kurdish state. I read one account that the Kurds have engaged in ethnic cleansing after taking over villages from ISIS. The inhabitants may have hated ISIS, but they aren't that crazy about the Kurds either.

 

The Kurds are definitely like the Jews of Syria. Nobody wants them to have their own state. I agree best they can do is carve out an area in Syria and do their thing.

Maybe the U.S. has an occupation master plan to set-up Kurdistan and build bases on that land under the guise of providing necessary defense for the new Kurdish state.

 

Here is a link reporting on the ethnic cleansing accusation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ed-of-ethnic-cleansing-and-killing-opponents/

 

I think I read about that in the past. From what I recall it was said their people were treated like that by ISIS first when getting displaced.

Supposedly the townspeople joined in robbing them and doing other heinous acts since ISIS was now in control and doing it.

So when retaking the towns the Kurds viewed it as retaliation on both ISIS and the locals for what they did to them.

I'm sure there is/was plenty of wrongdoing on all sides. Everyone has a legitimate beef for their hate based on some form of experienced atrocities in that region.

I will say I firmly side with the Kurds over any of the Muslim groups in that area.

Seen a lot of documentaries with Americans fighting alongside the Kurds. Seem like a good people. Plus their skill, resolve, and alliance has been solid in comparison.

 

I've seen Saudis referred to as apes with Macs. As far as the various tribes in the Middle East go, that description seems to generally fit about all of them. But when we arm them, they become apes with lethal weapons.

Oh well, some stockholders at Lockheed and a lot of former generals who serve as consultants make a lot of money on all this chaos and arms dealing.