4 ms·

MBS would find himself on the receiving end of a cruise missile. It's not as if he would be missed by the rest of the al-Saud family he sidelined. The US also

by fmajid 8y ago

MBS would find himself on the receiving end of a cruise missile. It's not as if he would be missed by the rest of the al-Saud family he sidelined. The US also has long-standing contingency plans to support Shia secessionism in the oil-rich Eastern provinces should the al-Saud stop doing as they are told. No invasion needed.

zaphirplane 8y ago
Of course that’s absolutely what would happen, like Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Panama. On reflection regime change hasn’t been successful without significant troops on the ground
- theandrewbailey 8y ago
  Depends on what significant means. Recently, regime change hasn't been successful even with 100,000 troops on the ground.
- adventured 8y ago
  Regime change often isn't necessary for the US to accomplish its goals. In this thread premise, Syria would be regarded as a success, because there's nothing left of the country. They no longer pose a threat to Israel and they're a small fraction of the military power they used to be (a net drag on Russia rather than a benefit). It'll take them decades to rebuild. The average income in Cuba is $20 per month. Without regime change they were heavily neutralized as an influence in Latin America. Cuba's military could hardly be less of a concern. Once Raul Castro is gone, that's the formal end. Venezuela is a failed state. The Bolivarian Revolution is over there. There won't be another Chavez any time soon. And if there is, there are no resources to be used to fund such a regime's agenda. The US didn't have to do anything in that case, Venezuela destroyed itself through typical Statist mismanagement. Ironically Chavez will have ended up helping to benefit the US considerably, by destroying what should have been one of the world's largest oil producers. It removed vast potential supply from the global oil market for decades, helping to an extent to make way for the US boom, keeping prices high enough to spur on the Permian shale build-out. If Venezuela were producing like it should be, that'd be ~4m more barrels per day the US producers would have to contend with on the global market, dragging on prices. Instead the US has a solid runway from here to 16m barrels per day of production in the coming decade. The US is now a big oil competitor with Iran. So keeping them boxed in - no regime change needed - is a large win economically. The US can pretend it's for all sorts of reasons, while actually serving the purpose of furthering US oil production and exports. The US is 'convincing' South Korea to abandon Iranian oil right now, in favor of US oil. All the US has to do is keep Iran boxed in for two decades until oil demand begins to contract, then it's over (two decades merely being the time from here to 9/11). Iran's theocratic system will collapse in on itself as oil demand fades, they don't have enough of an alternative economy.
  - petre 8y ago
    That's why I'm happy about the US being an oil producer: less arab/persian oil money to sponsor terrorism. Syria is also screwed. Too bad they scewed Gaddafi, a hopeless romantic who wasn't sponsoring terrorism when the US made everybody think he was, but it was in fact Hafez al-Assad who did.
    - zaphirplane 8y ago
      No idea where you’d get that from. I am sure when the US and UK are building a coalition to invade and remove Assad a lot of things will turn up, nuclear programs, chemical weapons, training camps, cocaine, ivory trade. Lots and lots of stories will be made up. No need to get the ball rolling
  - stunt 8y ago
    Yes! But millions are suffering as a result in these countries. And apart from that, the EU is also in trouble with the immigration crisis. I don't call it a success.
mc32 8y ago
Nopec might have made some sense in the 90s or 00s. But with oil independence the effect the opec states have on the price of oil is muted so the time for this is passed for all intents and purposes.
snarfy 8y ago
19 Saudis were responsible for 9/11 and we invade...Iraq. They stop selling oil in dollars and they will get the Iraq treatment too.
- exelius 8y ago
  Pretty sure Trump would be all too happy to send some “freedom fireworks” to SA if it preserves the petro-dollar. The only reason we’re allies with them is because we need a major Islamic power in our corner to provide a counter-balance to Israel, and to be fair the Saudi government has proved to be the most ideologically flexible. The bulk of the population of SA is militantly conservative, and a despot is easier to deal with than a religious populist whose base hates our entire way of life. But the latter is not a problem for someone of Trump’s moral constitution — just bomb all the peasants to the Stone Age and take over the oil fields (which are already operated by American companies). They’re the best example I can think of as to what a “frenemy” looks like; and the petro-dollar is the only reason “fr” is part of that word. Their espionage activities show me they view America as a machine to be manipulated to serve their ends, not as a legitimate partner in anything. The Saudi military is, by all accounts, corrupt from top to bottom and almost entirely reliant on American contractors to maintain and result their stockpiles of American weapons. We know where all their weapons are because we built the bases and bunkers they’re housed in. They wouldn’t put up much of a fight, at least not for long. I wouldn’t be surprised if we planned for this and had a back door into all their weapons systems. Mind you, all of this would be an absolutely terrible idea and almost certainly start WW3 thanks to the cultural heritage around Mecca. But also keep in mind there are a non-zero number of voices in Trump’s base actively advocating our role in starting a biblical apocalypse somewhere around Israel / Syria — so that’s not necessarily considered a negative in the minds of Trump’s base. But yeah, I think the Saudis may be overestimating Kushner’s influence and underestimating the influence of Trump’s base. That’s the danger of supporting a populist.

by fmajid 8y ago

zaphirplane 8y ago

Of course that’s absolutely what would happen, like Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Panama. On reflection regime change hasn’t been successful without significant troops on the ground

theandrewbailey 8y ago
Depends on what significant means. Recently, regime change hasn't been successful even with 100,000 troops on the ground.
adventured 8y ago
Regime change often isn't necessary for the US to accomplish its goals. In this thread premise, Syria would be regarded as a success, because there's nothing left of the country. They no longer pose a threat to Israel and they're a small fraction of the military power they used to be (a net drag on Russia rather than a benefit). It'll take them decades to rebuild. The average income in Cuba is $20 per month. Without regime change they were heavily neutralized as an influence in Latin America. Cuba's military could hardly be less of a concern. Once Raul Castro is gone, that's the formal end. Venezuela is a failed state. The Bolivarian Revolution is over there. There won't be another Chavez any time soon. And if there is, there are no resources to be used to fund such a regime's agenda. The US didn't have to do anything in that case, Venezuela destroyed itself through typical Statist mismanagement. Ironically Chavez will have ended up helping to benefit the US considerably, by destroying what should have been one of the world's largest oil producers. It removed vast potential supply from the global oil market for decades, helping to an extent to make way for the US boom, keeping prices high enough to spur on the Permian shale build-out. If Venezuela were producing like it should be, that'd be ~4m more barrels per day the US producers would have to contend with on the global market, dragging on prices. Instead the US has a solid runway from here to 16m barrels per day of production in the coming decade. The US is now a big oil competitor with Iran. So keeping them boxed in - no regime change needed - is a large win economically. The US can pretend it's for all sorts of reasons, while actually serving the purpose of furthering US oil production and exports. The US is 'convincing' South Korea to abandon Iranian oil right now, in favor of US oil. All the US has to do is keep Iran boxed in for two decades until oil demand begins to contract, then it's over (two decades merely being the time from here to 9/11). Iran's theocratic system will collapse in on itself as oil demand fades, they don't have enough of an alternative economy.
- petre 8y ago
  That's why I'm happy about the US being an oil producer: less arab/persian oil money to sponsor terrorism. Syria is also screwed. Too bad they scewed Gaddafi, a hopeless romantic who wasn't sponsoring terrorism when the US made everybody think he was, but it was in fact Hafez al-Assad who did.
  - zaphirplane 8y ago
    No idea where you’d get that from. I am sure when the US and UK are building a coalition to invade and remove Assad a lot of things will turn up, nuclear programs, chemical weapons, training camps, cocaine, ivory trade. Lots and lots of stories will be made up. No need to get the ball rolling
- stunt 8y ago
  Yes! But millions are suffering as a result in these countries. And apart from that, the EU is also in trouble with the immigration crisis. I don't call it a success.

mc32 8y ago

Nopec might have made some sense in the 90s or 00s. But with oil independence the effect the opec states have on the price of oil is muted so the time for this is passed for all intents and purposes.

snarfy 8y ago

19 Saudis were responsible for 9/11 and we invade...Iraq. They stop selling oil in dollars and they will get the Iraq treatment too.

exelius 8y ago
Pretty sure Trump would be all too happy to send some “freedom fireworks” to SA if it preserves the petro-dollar. The only reason we’re allies with them is because we need a major Islamic power in our corner to provide a counter-balance to Israel, and to be fair the Saudi government has proved to be the most ideologically flexible. The bulk of the population of SA is militantly conservative, and a despot is easier to deal with than a religious populist whose base hates our entire way of life. But the latter is not a problem for someone of Trump’s moral constitution — just bomb all the peasants to the Stone Age and take over the oil fields (which are already operated by American companies). They’re the best example I can think of as to what a “frenemy” looks like; and the petro-dollar is the only reason “fr” is part of that word. Their espionage activities show me they view America as a machine to be manipulated to serve their ends, not as a legitimate partner in anything. The Saudi military is, by all accounts, corrupt from top to bottom and almost entirely reliant on American contractors to maintain and result their stockpiles of American weapons. We know where all their weapons are because we built the bases and bunkers they’re housed in. They wouldn’t put up much of a fight, at least not for long. I wouldn’t be surprised if we planned for this and had a back door into all their weapons systems. Mind you, all of this would be an absolutely terrible idea and almost certainly start WW3 thanks to the cultural heritage around Mecca. But also keep in mind there are a non-zero number of voices in Trump’s base actively advocating our role in starting a biblical apocalypse somewhere around Israel / Syria — so that’s not necessarily considered a negative in the minds of Trump’s base. But yeah, I think the Saudis may be overestimating Kushner’s influence and underestimating the influence of Trump’s base. That’s the danger of supporting a populist.