6 ms·

Given the recent split between the USA and Saudi Arabia over crude oil production targets, I wouldn't be surprised to see similar hacking of Saudi news feeds by

Given the recent split between the USA and Saudi Arabia over crude oil production targets, I wouldn't be surprised to see similar hacking of Saudi news feeds by 'domestic protestors' and a new US State Department focus on 'human rights and democratic reforms in the repressive Saudi dictatorship' coming up pretty quickly. This would be a radical shift from US behavior during the Arab Spring, when the USA gave a wink and a nod to Saudi tanks rolling into Bahrain to crush the pro-democracy protests there. [edit] Here's a story about Saudi Arabia, hijabs, and death threats to women (2016). Let the revolutions begin! https://tribune.com.pk/story/1251171/saudis-call-execution-woman-without-hijab https://tribune.com.pk/story/1251171/saudis-call-execution-w... > "A woman in Saudi Arabia has sparked outrage after posting a photo of herself on Twitter without an abaya or hijab, and is now facing calls for her execution."

fritztastic 4y ago
This is a very simplistic view of the tensions in the region, which have been ongoing for decades. Just as the US has reason to retaliate against Saudi Arabia, many other places could also have reasons to push the ruling family out of power and gain influence. It also fails to account for the autonomy of the people there. Is it really so hard to believe that they are rebelling against authoritarianism? Even if there is an interest to empower the people to oust the regime, wouldn't it be fomenting on already existing unhappiness? Interestingly, the same can be said of unrest anywhere- undoubtedly the agendas of several states will always align with weakening their competitors/adversaries. When you consider the things everyday people care about and strive for, it can be argued that any party interested in destabilizing another nation would play to those aspirations in such a way as to further their control- this is true of almost everywhere, it is not exclusive to any one people or any one institution, and it can be seen in every region. In any given place, if you take a close look, there are varying levels of influence from foreign powers- often with the goal to secure economic goals or obtain natural resources.
- avgcorrection 4y ago
  > Even if there is an interest to empower the people to oust the regime, wouldn't it be fomenting on already existing unhappiness? Out of all the nations on Earth, perhaps a majority of them have some kind of discontent among the population. Then, with this blank cheque being given, the nations with the most powerful intel agencies can empower the ones they want into full-blown protests. The conspiracy theory that Russia influenced the two recent American presidential elections naturally come to mind. If that was the case—and I don’t doubt that they might have invested a small pittance into FB ads—then they were surely just building on existing unhappiness, as Trump supporters are too numerous to all be sleeper agents of the waning super power that is Russia.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > This is a very simplistic view of the tensions in the region That is a very simplistic, and correct view of how the US manipulates such tensions. There are many of us international HNers, whose countries suffered multiple US backed coups or color revolutions, and even worse, whose grassroots popular movements were co-opted and subverted by the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Polish_trade_union)#Support_from_the_United_States_and_the_Western_Bloc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Polish_trade_union... So much that even the 'people's movement', Solidarity in Poland, that was the 'trade union' movement that overthrow their government, was CIA funded and organized. The same thing has been a staple of daily life in Middle East since 1960s, when CIA decided to fund and use Islamist groups.
  - fritztastic 4y ago
    As someone from one of those countries, I'm well aware. I'm not saying the US, and/or proxies of the agendas of the powerful who stand to gain from exploitation and meddling, aren't involved. I would expect they are very much involved, and I would be very skeptical of any claim they aren't. What I'm saying is simply that despite this, people in those places could conceivably be independently fed up- and their dissatisfaction with their regimes stands on its own and is valid. There is a lot of nuance and a lot of different intersecting motivations and interests at play. I just think, in my personal opinion, that those things people fight and risk dying for (freedom from persecution, personal safety, to be able to put food on the table, to care for family, etc) aren't only happening because of outside factors and political reasons, these are human concerns. People in Iran, Saudi Arabia, anywhere else, aren't just pawns susceptible to propagands- they understand there are all sorts of players trying to gain dominance over their lives. A lot of people in the US have these broad ideas about people in entire regions, as though they're monoliths- like people in Iran/Saudi Arabia were content and would have been obedient if not for foreign involvement, which I think is simplistic and I disagree with this assumption. People in an uprising and nations in upheaval are especially vulnerable to external groups swooping in to manipulate the situation to their interests- this much is true, and it can also be true that people would have been rising up regardless. How this plays out over time is yet to be seen but unfortunately the most likely scenario is some other despot will step in to further their personal agenda at the expense of the people, whether they align with US interests or otherwise... like anywhere else, those in power will fight to maintain and gain power and control, no matter the human cost and devastation- this is true everywhere.
- Slava_Propanei 4y ago
- somenameforme 4y ago
  You're absolutely right it's been going on for decades, but I think looking into that history is also telling. In 1953 Iran was a relatively secular and democratic nation that had generally positive, though flagging, relations with the West. Then their leader decided to reduce US/UK control over his country's oil assets. So of course we had to bring democracy to them. But since they already had a democracy, autocracy would have to do instead. [1] We staged a coup, overthrew their democracy, and installed an extremely unpopular puppet dictator and monarch. 26 years later in 1979 there was another revolution, except this one was carried out by the people of Iran, and not the CIA. The puppet (still ruling from 1953 interestingly) was overthrown, and in his place an Islamic theocracy was created. And since then it's invariably been headed by leaders that, for some reason, haven't been especially fond of the West - and frequently imply we're up to shenanigans. That scenario continues to this day. Ultimately I no longer really believe that we deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to black ops types scenarios. We've turned what should be a sort of last resort act of subterfuge into what increasingly seems to be a front-line approach to international relations. The most bizarre part is that these shenanigans never even really seem to achieve anything. Iran just being one example of going black ops to undermine one enemy, only to create one 10x more deadly, dangerous, and hostile than the former. All we really seem to be achieving is the fast-tracking of WW3. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
  - darawk 4y ago
    The fact that the US orchestrated a coup in 1953 proves that the US is also orchestrating this coup today? That's the argument?
    - pazimzadeh 4y ago
      It obviously means there's reason to be suspicious. It took 60 years for the US to admit its role in the 1953 coup.
      - 4y ago
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  No, GP is a legit comment. Everything you say about Iran is also true of Saudi Arabia (in the sense of the ruling regime being autocratic and oppressive) but it's expedient for the establishment in the US to condemn one regime and support the other.
avgcorrection 4y ago
Perhaps. But these things are not signs of that since the American government has hated the Iranian government for a long time. It would be much more suspicious if the US govt. started to support the Iranian govt. all of a sudden.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  You don't think they'd try to change a government they've hated for a long time? I would also find a sudden 180 on Iran suspicious, but also would not be surprised if any Iranian opposition group had US support.
  - avgcorrection 4y ago
    I would think that they would, yes. And it is a day that ends with “y” so it is as likely that they are doing it now as it was five years ago.
ProjectArcturis 4y ago
The basic deal between the US and SA is, in exchange for supplying the global oil market, the US will overlook SA's dictatorship, human rights abuses, and involvement in 9/11, and will supply them with weapons. If SA stops upholding its side of the deal, I would expect the Arab Spring would suddenly find its way to SA. Or, perhaps first, the US would support a coup against MBS to replace him with a more compliant member of the House of Said.
futhey 4y ago
People read too much into the recent production target cuts. An important thing to consider is that OPEC+ has been failing to meet their targets by about the same amount for several months now, and most experts seem to believe they lack capacity, not the will to produce. https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/commodities/opec-missed-july-output-target-production-hike-capacity-energy-crisis-2022-8 https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/commodities/opec-mi...

fritztastic 4y ago

This is a very simplistic view of the tensions in the region, which have been ongoing for decades. Just as the US has reason to retaliate against Saudi Arabia, many other places could also have reasons to push the ruling family out of power and gain influence. It also fails to account for the autonomy of the people there. Is it really so hard to believe that they are rebelling against authoritarianism? Even if there is an interest to empower the people to oust the regime, wouldn't it be fomenting on already existing unhappiness? Interestingly, the same can be said of unrest anywhere- undoubtedly the agendas of several states will always align with weakening their competitors/adversaries. When you consider the things everyday people care about and strive for, it can be argued that any party interested in destabilizing another nation would play to those aspirations in such a way as to further their control- this is true of almost everywhere, it is not exclusive to any one people or any one institution, and it can be seen in every region. In any given place, if you take a close look, there are varying levels of influence from foreign powers- often with the goal to secure economic goals or obtain natural resources.

avgcorrection 4y ago
> Even if there is an interest to empower the people to oust the regime, wouldn't it be fomenting on already existing unhappiness? Out of all the nations on Earth, perhaps a majority of them have some kind of discontent among the population. Then, with this blank cheque being given, the nations with the most powerful intel agencies can empower the ones they want into full-blown protests. The conspiracy theory that Russia influenced the two recent American presidential elections naturally come to mind. If that was the case—and I don’t doubt that they might have invested a small pittance into FB ads—then they were surely just building on existing unhappiness, as Trump supporters are too numerous to all be sleeper agents of the waning super power that is Russia.
unity1001 4y ago
> This is a very simplistic view of the tensions in the region That is a very simplistic, and correct view of how the US manipulates such tensions. There are many of us international HNers, whose countries suffered multiple US backed coups or color revolutions, and even worse, whose grassroots popular movements were co-opted and subverted by the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Polish_trade_union)#Support_from_the_United_States_and_the_Western_Bloc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Polish_trade_union... So much that even the 'people's movement', Solidarity in Poland, that was the 'trade union' movement that overthrow their government, was CIA funded and organized. The same thing has been a staple of daily life in Middle East since 1960s, when CIA decided to fund and use Islamist groups.
- fritztastic 4y ago
  As someone from one of those countries, I'm well aware. I'm not saying the US, and/or proxies of the agendas of the powerful who stand to gain from exploitation and meddling, aren't involved. I would expect they are very much involved, and I would be very skeptical of any claim they aren't. What I'm saying is simply that despite this, people in those places could conceivably be independently fed up- and their dissatisfaction with their regimes stands on its own and is valid. There is a lot of nuance and a lot of different intersecting motivations and interests at play. I just think, in my personal opinion, that those things people fight and risk dying for (freedom from persecution, personal safety, to be able to put food on the table, to care for family, etc) aren't only happening because of outside factors and political reasons, these are human concerns. People in Iran, Saudi Arabia, anywhere else, aren't just pawns susceptible to propagands- they understand there are all sorts of players trying to gain dominance over their lives. A lot of people in the US have these broad ideas about people in entire regions, as though they're monoliths- like people in Iran/Saudi Arabia were content and would have been obedient if not for foreign involvement, which I think is simplistic and I disagree with this assumption. People in an uprising and nations in upheaval are especially vulnerable to external groups swooping in to manipulate the situation to their interests- this much is true, and it can also be true that people would have been rising up regardless. How this plays out over time is yet to be seen but unfortunately the most likely scenario is some other despot will step in to further their personal agenda at the expense of the people, whether they align with US interests or otherwise... like anywhere else, those in power will fight to maintain and gain power and control, no matter the human cost and devastation- this is true everywhere.
Slava_Propanei 4y ago
somenameforme 4y ago
You're absolutely right it's been going on for decades, but I think looking into that history is also telling. In 1953 Iran was a relatively secular and democratic nation that had generally positive, though flagging, relations with the West. Then their leader decided to reduce US/UK control over his country's oil assets. So of course we had to bring democracy to them. But since they already had a democracy, autocracy would have to do instead. [1] We staged a coup, overthrew their democracy, and installed an extremely unpopular puppet dictator and monarch. 26 years later in 1979 there was another revolution, except this one was carried out by the people of Iran, and not the CIA. The puppet (still ruling from 1953 interestingly) was overthrown, and in his place an Islamic theocracy was created. And since then it's invariably been headed by leaders that, for some reason, haven't been especially fond of the West - and frequently imply we're up to shenanigans. That scenario continues to this day. Ultimately I no longer really believe that we deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to black ops types scenarios. We've turned what should be a sort of last resort act of subterfuge into what increasingly seems to be a front-line approach to international relations. The most bizarre part is that these shenanigans never even really seem to achieve anything. Iran just being one example of going black ops to undermine one enemy, only to create one 10x more deadly, dangerous, and hostile than the former. All we really seem to be achieving is the fast-tracking of WW3. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
- darawk 4y ago
  The fact that the US orchestrated a coup in 1953 proves that the US is also orchestrating this coup today? That's the argument?
  - pazimzadeh 4y ago
    It obviously means there's reason to be suspicious. It took 60 years for the US to admit its role in the 1953 coup.
    - 4y ago
anigbrowl 4y ago
No, GP is a legit comment. Everything you say about Iran is also true of Saudi Arabia (in the sense of the ruling regime being autocratic and oppressive) but it's expedient for the establishment in the US to condemn one regime and support the other.

avgcorrection 4y ago

Perhaps. But these things are not signs of that since the American government has hated the Iranian government for a long time. It would be much more suspicious if the US govt. started to support the Iranian govt. all of a sudden.

boomboomsubban 4y ago
You don't think they'd try to change a government they've hated for a long time? I would also find a sudden 180 on Iran suspicious, but also would not be surprised if any Iranian opposition group had US support.
- avgcorrection 4y ago
  I would think that they would, yes. And it is a day that ends with “y” so it is as likely that they are doing it now as it was five years ago.

ProjectArcturis 4y ago

The basic deal between the US and SA is, in exchange for supplying the global oil market, the US will overlook SA's dictatorship, human rights abuses, and involvement in 9/11, and will supply them with weapons. If SA stops upholding its side of the deal, I would expect the Arab Spring would suddenly find its way to SA. Or, perhaps first, the US would support a coup against MBS to replace him with a more compliant member of the House of Said.

futhey 4y ago

People read too much into the recent production target cuts. An important thing to consider is that OPEC+ has been failing to meet their targets by about the same amount for several months now, and most experts seem to believe they lack capacity, not the will to produce. https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/commodities/opec-missed-july-output-target-production-hike-capacity-energy-crisis-2022-8 https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/commodities/opec-mi...