8 ms·

I would be more inclined to believe that war is coming. Broad regional conflict will spread, fueled by failing puppet states like KSA that are going, not to onl

by M_Grey 10y ago

I would be more inclined to believe that war is coming. Broad regional conflict will spread, fueled by failing puppet states like KSA that are going, not to only to fail, but messily implode.

bogomipz 10y ago
>"fueled by failing puppet states like KSA that are going" A puppet state implies that some other state is pulling the strings. Saudi Arabia is controlled by the House of Saud no?
- Spooky23 10y ago
  Where would the Saudis be without the United States? I don't think "puppet state" is an accurate description, but their fate is heavily dependent on our mutual relationship.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    They're co-dependent, almost symbiotic. It's never clear who controls whom.
    - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
      > It's never clear who controls whom It's as clear as it gets. The United States guarantees the House of Saud'a rule in exchange for military and regional policy concessions. If the KSA quits, America can pull its security guarantee and the regime falls. If the United States quits, the KSA can...sell Treausries and stop selling us oil? The United States was 61% energy independent in 2013, with net energy imports falling [1]. We also import lots of oil from Mexico and Canada. The energy threat isn't existentially potent. Regarding Treasuries, the accounts could be frozen and sanctions levied. Again, power is asymmetric. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_energy_independence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_energy_indepen...
      - astrodust 10y ago
        > If the KSA quits, America can pull its security guarantee and the regime falls. Well, that's a pretty shitty outcome for the US, so the KSA has a ton of leverage here and they know it. > The United States was 61% energy independent in 2013, with net energy imports falling... Yes, and this might be one of the reasons that Saudi oil prices were pushed down. Shale oil and fracking was becoming a problem and they moved to correct that. This also took care of the Canada problem as well, setting back development by another decade. Don't forget the oil market is world-wide. The US could be self-sufficient but if oil is crazy expensive because Saudi Arabia is on fire that will wreck the economy.
        JumpCrisscross 10y ago
        > the KSA has a ton of leverage No, they don't. It's an existential question versus inconvenience. Trashing the KSA could be spun as a national security or human rights decision. > the oil market is world-wide Trashing the KSA would be expensive, but not catastrophic. Rising oil prices would help American exporters. Furthermore, we have laws on our books to ban the export of crude; WTI could be low while Brent soars.
        M_Grey 10y ago
        Seriously... we just ate upwards of $6 trillion on a couple of wars that changed nothing for the better, and frankly people already seem largely over it, even as those wars are far from over. Clearly the public is not above being led by the nose when it comes to bombing people they've never met, don't identify with, and maybe even are a bit scared of.
        JumpCrisscross 10y ago
        I don't see why dropping support for the House of Saud would require we bomb anyone. We'd garrison Israel, the UAE and Kuwait and let Saudi Arabia consume itself from within. The Kingdom depends on American arms. If we cut those sales off, their security infrastructure starts failing within weeks. My fundamental point is that American influence over the Saudis shadows any Saudi influence on America.
    - ehnto 10y ago
      The ties surely go deeper than just oil, for example helping to keep the area stable or as least as stable as is beneficial. However I wonder if the recent boom in shale oil in the US might have tipped the relationship in US favor.
    - edblarney 10y ago
      House of Saud are not vassals of the US, and they don't control the US. They made a deal way back that the US would keep House of Saud in power, in exchange for their Oil at market prices. That - and the fact that they are allies on 'terrorism' means a degree of mutually beneficial transactions. Strategic partners, that's it. The US does things that massively piss of the Saudis - particularly the removal of Iran sanctions. That is pretty much #1 worst thing that the US could do, outside of withdrawing support for them unilaterally.
      - valuearb 10y ago
        In exchange for selling their oil at market prices? That's not much of an exchange, given the Saudis have to sell their oil at market prices to someone and the market is entirely fungible. If they sell it to different countries we can just buy the oil those countries no longer need.
        edblarney 10y ago
        "That's not much of an exchange, given the Saudis have to sell their oil at market prices to someone and the market is entirely fungible" It's a very important deal considering how much Oil they have, and that they could chose to use it as a geostratgic weapon - but really, if the US did not protect them they would have been invaded long ago. It's not so apparent in 2016, but it was more important way back. Saudi Oil is sweet, and very easy to access with old-school technology. Nowadays you have off-shore, deep-water, Oil Sands, horizontal drilling etc. etc. that didn't exist.
        AnAfrican 10y ago
        If I'm not mistaken, the US doesn't consume that much Saudi oil anyway. So may be it's more about protecting the interests of American Oil companies rather than direct consumption.
      - chimeracoder 10y ago
        > That - and the fact that they are allies on 'terrorism' I think you put the quotation marks in the wrong place. The Saudi government are "allies" with the US on terrorism - that is, they nominally support the US efforts to combat terrorism, which means that the US overlooks Saudi-originating terrorism and instead directs its attention elsewhere.
  - finid 10y ago
    I want to use the term "vassal state" but even that is not very accurate. They seem to have more control over us than we do them. Our military needs their money to create and sustain critical jobs here and buy billions worth of military tools most of which they barely know how to use.
    - markdown 10y ago
      > They seem to have more control over us than we do them. You're thinking of Israel.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      Something of a client state or co-dependency. The US relies on Saudi oil. Saudi Arabia relies on US protection. Each benefit mutually from petrodollar pricing -- the US guards against devaluing its currency (and reducing the value of dollar-denominated assets within its financial system), Saudi Arabia, and virtually every oil-exporting nation, benefits by not having their currencies appreciate in the absence of any meaningful domestic demand for foreign goods. There are other elements, though those are the large ones.
      - finid 10y ago
        The US relies on Saudi oil. Actually the US does not need Saudi oil. Yes, we do import from them, but we can easily replace them. We get almost 4x as much oil from Canada as we do from Saudi Arabia, by the way. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6 http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6
        dredmorbius 10y ago
        Oil is a globally-traded commodity. Saudi Arabia is 13% of global production, and without that, prices would increase markedly as the marginal alternatives are vastly higher-cost (think $120/bbl rather than the current $50/bbl). So, while the US may not burn Saudi oil directly, it is absolutely dependent economically on Saudi Arabia supplying a critical share of global oil. More significantly, as the global surplus producer, Saudi Arabia took over the role the US had played from 1930 - 1971 in setting and establishing global oil prices. The result hasn't been quite so, ahem, well-oiled as the TRO's production quota and certificates of clearance (US Dept. of Interior), but it's been the one handle on extraction volumes, and hence, price, that's been available.
  - rz2k 10y ago
    Saudi Arabia relies on happening to be in control of Mecca for its identity, and appearing to be stable for its survival. A productive (regardless of the sincerity) friendship with the US and oil revenue-supplied treasury support those goals. Prestige is important, and often more important than wealth. Things like additional human stampedes during the Hajj have the potential to end Saudi rule far faster than any relaxation of US support, or even attacks from powerful neighbors.
  - bogomipz 10y ago
    Its not just the US that helps prop them up its also the UK which has very similar dynamics: http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/01/15/data-how-guns-and-oil-dominate-uk-saudi-arabia-relationship/ http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/01/15/data-how-guns-an...
- M_Grey 10y ago
  Which is... funded by us. Armed by us. Guarded on the international stage by us. Even when a couple of dozen of their citizens flew airplanes into our buildings, what did we do? Shake their hands and bomb their neighbors. I grant that "puppet" is hyperbole however.
  - golergka 10y ago
    > Even when a couple of dozen of their citizens flew airplanes into our buildings, what did we do? I never hear a convincing answer to a question: what should US have done instead? Stop supporting House of Saud and let their internal enemies, as radical as ISIS, take power instead, turning the country into another Syria? Yes, supporting bad guys feels bad - but you have to consider the alternative.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      My point is simply that an American populace prepared to accept that, is more than prepared to accept far less.
neolefty 10y ago
Messy civil wars maybe but the major countries and regions have no appetite for war on their own soil and will actively avoid it. China, Europe, India, US, Indonesia, South America, 90% of Africa -- war is neither popular nor desired there, and although imperfect the governments function well enough to prevent it and focus on more constructive endeavors.

by M_Grey 10y ago

I would be more inclined to believe that war is coming. Broad regional conflict will spread, fueled by failing puppet states like KSA that are going, not to only to fail, but messily implode.

bogomipz 10y ago

>"fueled by failing puppet states like KSA that are going" A puppet state implies that some other state is pulling the strings. Saudi Arabia is controlled by the House of Saud no?

Spooky23 10y ago
Where would the Saudis be without the United States? I don't think "puppet state" is an accurate description, but their fate is heavily dependent on our mutual relationship.
- astrodust 10y ago
  They're co-dependent, almost symbiotic. It's never clear who controls whom.
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    > It's never clear who controls whom It's as clear as it gets. The United States guarantees the House of Saud'a rule in exchange for military and regional policy concessions. If the KSA quits, America can pull its security guarantee and the regime falls. If the United States quits, the KSA can...sell Treausries and stop selling us oil? The United States was 61% energy independent in 2013, with net energy imports falling [1]. We also import lots of oil from Mexico and Canada. The energy threat isn't existentially potent. Regarding Treasuries, the accounts could be frozen and sanctions levied. Again, power is asymmetric. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_energy_independence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_energy_indepen...
    - astrodust 10y ago
      > If the KSA quits, America can pull its security guarantee and the regime falls. Well, that's a pretty shitty outcome for the US, so the KSA has a ton of leverage here and they know it. > The United States was 61% energy independent in 2013, with net energy imports falling... Yes, and this might be one of the reasons that Saudi oil prices were pushed down. Shale oil and fracking was becoming a problem and they moved to correct that. This also took care of the Canada problem as well, setting back development by another decade. Don't forget the oil market is world-wide. The US could be self-sufficient but if oil is crazy expensive because Saudi Arabia is on fire that will wreck the economy.
      - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
        > the KSA has a ton of leverage No, they don't. It's an existential question versus inconvenience. Trashing the KSA could be spun as a national security or human rights decision. > the oil market is world-wide Trashing the KSA would be expensive, but not catastrophic. Rising oil prices would help American exporters. Furthermore, we have laws on our books to ban the export of crude; WTI could be low while Brent soars.
        M_Grey 10y ago
        Seriously... we just ate upwards of $6 trillion on a couple of wars that changed nothing for the better, and frankly people already seem largely over it, even as those wars are far from over. Clearly the public is not above being led by the nose when it comes to bombing people they've never met, don't identify with, and maybe even are a bit scared of.
        JumpCrisscross 10y ago
        I don't see why dropping support for the House of Saud would require we bomb anyone. We'd garrison Israel, the UAE and Kuwait and let Saudi Arabia consume itself from within. The Kingdom depends on American arms. If we cut those sales off, their security infrastructure starts failing within weeks. My fundamental point is that American influence over the Saudis shadows any Saudi influence on America.
  - ehnto 10y ago
    The ties surely go deeper than just oil, for example helping to keep the area stable or as least as stable as is beneficial. However I wonder if the recent boom in shale oil in the US might have tipped the relationship in US favor.
  - edblarney 10y ago
    House of Saud are not vassals of the US, and they don't control the US. They made a deal way back that the US would keep House of Saud in power, in exchange for their Oil at market prices. That - and the fact that they are allies on 'terrorism' means a degree of mutually beneficial transactions. Strategic partners, that's it. The US does things that massively piss of the Saudis - particularly the removal of Iran sanctions. That is pretty much #1 worst thing that the US could do, outside of withdrawing support for them unilaterally.
    - valuearb 10y ago
      In exchange for selling their oil at market prices? That's not much of an exchange, given the Saudis have to sell their oil at market prices to someone and the market is entirely fungible. If they sell it to different countries we can just buy the oil those countries no longer need.
      - edblarney 10y ago
        "That's not much of an exchange, given the Saudis have to sell their oil at market prices to someone and the market is entirely fungible" It's a very important deal considering how much Oil they have, and that they could chose to use it as a geostratgic weapon - but really, if the US did not protect them they would have been invaded long ago. It's not so apparent in 2016, but it was more important way back. Saudi Oil is sweet, and very easy to access with old-school technology. Nowadays you have off-shore, deep-water, Oil Sands, horizontal drilling etc. etc. that didn't exist.
      - AnAfrican 10y ago
        If I'm not mistaken, the US doesn't consume that much Saudi oil anyway. So may be it's more about protecting the interests of American Oil companies rather than direct consumption.
    - chimeracoder 10y ago
      > That - and the fact that they are allies on 'terrorism' I think you put the quotation marks in the wrong place. The Saudi government are "allies" with the US on terrorism - that is, they nominally support the US efforts to combat terrorism, which means that the US overlooks Saudi-originating terrorism and instead directs its attention elsewhere.
- finid 10y ago
  I want to use the term "vassal state" but even that is not very accurate. They seem to have more control over us than we do them. Our military needs their money to create and sustain critical jobs here and buy billions worth of military tools most of which they barely know how to use.
  - markdown 10y ago
    > They seem to have more control over us than we do them. You're thinking of Israel.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Something of a client state or co-dependency. The US relies on Saudi oil. Saudi Arabia relies on US protection. Each benefit mutually from petrodollar pricing -- the US guards against devaluing its currency (and reducing the value of dollar-denominated assets within its financial system), Saudi Arabia, and virtually every oil-exporting nation, benefits by not having their currencies appreciate in the absence of any meaningful domestic demand for foreign goods. There are other elements, though those are the large ones.
    - finid 10y ago
      The US relies on Saudi oil. Actually the US does not need Saudi oil. Yes, we do import from them, but we can easily replace them. We get almost 4x as much oil from Canada as we do from Saudi Arabia, by the way. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6 http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6
      - dredmorbius 10y ago
        Oil is a globally-traded commodity. Saudi Arabia is 13% of global production, and without that, prices would increase markedly as the marginal alternatives are vastly higher-cost (think $120/bbl rather than the current $50/bbl). So, while the US may not burn Saudi oil directly, it is absolutely dependent economically on Saudi Arabia supplying a critical share of global oil. More significantly, as the global surplus producer, Saudi Arabia took over the role the US had played from 1930 - 1971 in setting and establishing global oil prices. The result hasn't been quite so, ahem, well-oiled as the TRO's production quota and certificates of clearance (US Dept. of Interior), but it's been the one handle on extraction volumes, and hence, price, that's been available.
- rz2k 10y ago
  Saudi Arabia relies on happening to be in control of Mecca for its identity, and appearing to be stable for its survival. A productive (regardless of the sincerity) friendship with the US and oil revenue-supplied treasury support those goals. Prestige is important, and often more important than wealth. Things like additional human stampedes during the Hajj have the potential to end Saudi rule far faster than any relaxation of US support, or even attacks from powerful neighbors.
- bogomipz 10y ago
  Its not just the US that helps prop them up its also the UK which has very similar dynamics: http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/01/15/data-how-guns-and-oil-dominate-uk-saudi-arabia-relationship/ http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/01/15/data-how-guns-an...
M_Grey 10y ago
Which is... funded by us. Armed by us. Guarded on the international stage by us. Even when a couple of dozen of their citizens flew airplanes into our buildings, what did we do? Shake their hands and bomb their neighbors. I grant that "puppet" is hyperbole however.
- golergka 10y ago
  > Even when a couple of dozen of their citizens flew airplanes into our buildings, what did we do? I never hear a convincing answer to a question: what should US have done instead? Stop supporting House of Saud and let their internal enemies, as radical as ISIS, take power instead, turning the country into another Syria? Yes, supporting bad guys feels bad - but you have to consider the alternative.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    My point is simply that an American populace prepared to accept that, is more than prepared to accept far less.

neolefty 10y ago

Messy civil wars maybe but the major countries and regions have no appetite for war on their own soil and will actively avoid it. China, Europe, India, US, Indonesia, South America, 90% of Africa -- war is neither popular nor desired there, and although imperfect the governments function well enough to prevent it and focus on more constructive endeavors.