[Timo]

It's the start of a very nice, regional, all-out war that Americans will never see, other than on TV, all perfectly timed to lead up to the 2016 elections. How perfectly convenient!

This does, however, place the burden on the US in choosing one side over the other, Sunni v. Shia. That decision will shape all of US diplomacy across the world for decades to come. Be careful what you wish for.

[GoghGoner]

When was the last time an oil exporter was involved in a conflict?

[Cid_Yama]

A little History.

March 2011:

Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh warned Tuesday of civil war. Saleh said the opposition, which is calling for his immediate departure, is trying to stage a coup, the BBC reported.

"Those who want to climb up to power through coups should know that this is out of the question. The homeland will not be stable. There will be a civil war, a bloody war," he said.

The United States and Saleh have been allies against terrorist networks in Yemen, and the Saudi government supports him, fearing an unstable country on its southern border.

The wave of defections was set in motion Friday when 52 protesters were killed.

In November protests continued throughout Yemen. On November 23, 2011, Saleh went to Saudi Arabia for the GCC meeting where he signed the power transfer agreement and left for the United States where he received medical treatment for his injuries. The GCC-brokered agreement allowed Saleh to retain the title, President, but gave full power to Hadi. Elections were to be held within 3 months.

In response, the CCYR worked collaboratively with civil society to produce the Declaration of the Youth Revolution Demands outlining what the transition of power should look like. The youth activists claim the GCC agreement was a deal between political elites, and did not address their demands.

On January 21, the Yemeni government approved a law acknowledging the GCC’s promise for Saleh’s immunity. Top government aides and Saleh's family would not be tried in any way. Saleh left Yemen on the 22nd, unsuccessfully sought residency in Oman, then flew to the US for treatment.

On February 21, 2012, Yemen held it's first elections. Hadi was the only candidate and was sworn in on February 27.

While many revolutionary youth claimed that this was just the first step to completely change Yemen's political realities and were angry that Saleh and his cronies avoided court over corruption and the deaths of so many protesters, the election of Abd Rabbuh Mansur Al-Hadi marked the end of Saleh's thirty-year rule over Yemen, achieving what Tawakul Karman and the first groups of youth began thirteen months earlier.

link

Jan 2015:

Sana’a: Gulf Cooperation Council foreign ministers on Wednesday accused Al Houthi militia in Yemen of attempting to stage a “coup” against President Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi, a day after the Al Houthi fighter seized the presidential palace.

“The states of the Gulf Cooperation Council consider what happened in Sana’a on Tuesday... a coup against the legitimate authority,” the ministers said in a statement following an emergency meeting in Riyadh.

The GCC also expressed support for the “constitutionally legitimate authority” of Hadi, and rejected “all measures aimed at imposing change by force”.

They warned that Gulf states “would take all measures necessary to protect their security, stability and vital interests in Yemen.”

The powerful militia seized almost full control of the capital Sana’a in September and have fought battles with government forces this week as they press for more political power.

At least 18 people have been killed in the fighting that erupted on Monday and dozens more wounded, medical sources said.

The UN Security Council condemned the attacks and backed Hadi as Yemen’s “legitimate authority”.

Yemen’s deposed leader Ali Abdullah Saleh, suspected of backing the rebels’ power grab, urged his successor to call early elections as a way out of the deepening turmoil in the country. He also advised him to seek “national unity.”

Aden’s main security body said in a statement that it was closing its airport, its seaport and entrances to the city due to “dangerous developments in the capital” and “attacks on the symbol of national sovereignty and constitutional legitimacy.”

Residents said hundreds of pro-government militia fighters had also arrived in Aden from several southern provinces. The rising unrest has fuelled longtime divisions in Yemen, where the government, Al Houthis, southern separatists, powerful Sunni tribes and the local Al Qaida branch are all vying for influence. It has raised fears of a collapse of Hadi’s Western-backed government, a key ally in Washington’s fight against Al Qaida, and the country descending into chaos.

The Al Houthis began increasing pressure on the authorities on Saturday with the kidnapping of Hadi’s chief of staff, Ahmad Awad Bin Mubarak, in an apparent bid to extract changes to a draft constitution opposed by the militia. Mubarak is leading efforts to reform how the country is governed. His plans for dividing Yemen into a six-region federation have angered the Al Houthis, who claim it would split the country into rich and poor regions. Both Hadi and Mubarak are from the south.

link


February 2015

The Gulf Cooperation Council has accused Shi’ite Houthi of staging a coup in Yemen after they announced they were dissolving parliament and forming a new government, Kuwait’s official news agency said on Saturday.

The opposition of the GCC, a six-nation bloc comprising energy-rich Gulf states, may signal growing isolation for the impoverished Yemen and reflects the hostility of its majority Sunni Muslim neighbours towards the Iranian-backed Houthis.

Yemen has been in political limbo since the president and prime minister resigned last month after the Houthis seized the presidential palace. On Friday, the movement dissolved parliament and said it would set up a new interim government.

Abdel Malik al-Houthi, the group’s leader, said on Saturday he was open to all parties playing a role in Yemen’s future.

“Our hand is extended to every political force in this country ... the space is open for partnership, cooperation and brotherhood and now everybody bears their responsibility for building, not destruction,” he said in a televised speech.

Sunni Muslim militants in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) have repeatedly clashed with the increasingly powerful Houthis, raising fears of an all-out sectarian war.

The Houthis entered Sanaa in September and began to fan out into more cities in Yemen’s south and west. Their spread has destabilised the country’s fragile security forces and stoked anger among tribal fighters allied to AQAP.

Four Houthi fighters were killed in a suspected AQAP attack in the southern al-Bayda province on Friday, while army forces clashed with tribesmen and AQAP fighters in a neighbouring district on Saturday.

link

So the Houthi's are fighting Al-Qaeda, just like the previous governments. That should be good, right? If that's why we were really there.

This last weekend:

The United States has evacuated its remaining military personnel from Yemen because of the deteriorating security situation, US officials have confirmed.

On Saturday, Yemeni officials said about 100 US troops were leaving an air base near a southern city that was stormed by al-Qaeda fighters on Friday.

The UN Security Council is holding an emergency meeting on Yemen on Sunday.

It was requested by Yemeni President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, who fled to the southern port city of Aden after the capital was taken over by Houthis last month.

link

But wait didn't he resign? Guess WE decided he wasn't. Guess we didn't want the Houthis seen as being the current government, though they are running the current government.

But, right now, Saudi Arabia is bombing the capital of Yemen. Which means they are attacking Yemen, not rebels. Just because you don't like the current government doesn't mean you aren't actually attacking the country when you are.

And the story said it was Al Qaeda who stormed the city by the US military base, not the Houthis, who are fighting Al Qaeda.

So if we were really there to fight Al Qaeda, shouldn't we be backing the Houthis? Oh, that's right, we take our orders from our Oil pushers. You know, the ones that are funding Al Qaeda. The Sunnis.

Seems our real mission is to halt the spread of Shia influence in the region. Boy, we really screwed the pooch in Iraq then, eh?

[Cid_Yama]

Mohammed Abdel-Salam, a spokesman for the Houthis, said that their forces were not aiming to "occupy" the south.

"They will be in Aden in few hours," Abdel-Salam told the Houthis' satellite Al-Masirah news channel.

Early Wednesday, Al-Masirah reported that the Houthis and allied fighters had "secured" the al-Annad air base, the country's largest. It claimed the base had been looted by both al-Qaida fighters and troops loyal to Hadi.

The reported Houthi takeover of the base took place after hours-long clashes between rival forces around the base. The US recently evacuated some 100 soldiers, including Special Forces commandos, from the base after al-Qaida briefly seized a nearby city. Britain also evacuated soldiers.

The base was crucial in the US drone campaign against al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, which America considers to be the most dangerous branch of the terror group.

The takeover of the base is part of the wider offensive led by Houthis and loyalists of Saleh within Yemen's armed forces.

The Houthis, in the aftermath of suicide bombings in Sanaa last week that killed at least 137 people, ordered a general mobilization of its forces. The group's leader, Abdel-Malik al-Houthi, vowed to send his forces to the south to fight al-Qaida and militant groups.

The Houthis seized the capital, Sanaa, in September and have been advancing south alongside forces loyal to Saleh.

link

Remember Saleh, US ally and dictator of Yemen for 30 years? He's on the Houthi side, fighting against Al Qaeda. We need to just get out of the Middle East. Too many mixed allegiances. And we are getting involved in a Shia-Sunni religious war. We don't even know who the enemy is anymore. (although I suspect it's our Sunni masters)

If the American people knew the truth, they would never go along with this crap.

[Cid_Yama]

Egyptian security and military officials say Saudi Arabia and Egypt will lead a ground operation in Yemen against Shiite forces and their allies after a campaign of airstrikes to weaken them. Three senior officials told the Associated Press that forces would enter by land from Saudi Arabia and by sea from the Red Sea and Arabian Sea. They said Thursday that other nations will also be involved.

link

[Plantagenet]

This does, however, place the burden on the US in choosing one side over the other, Sunni v. Shia. That decision will shape all of US diplomacy across the world for decades to come.

Obama has already decided that one. US forces are bombing the Sunni rebels in both Iraq and Syria, thereby helping the Shia. Now the US is cooperating with Shia Iran in attacking the Sunni forces in Tikrit. And Obama's apparently going to allow Shia Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, making Iran and the Shia the regional hegemons in the Middle east.

our-arab-allies-are-watching-horror-obama-allies-iran

[Quinny]

Bag of worms!

[AgentR11]

If the American people knew the truth, they would never go along with this crap.

Americans only care if *lots* of US kids are dieing. Otherwise, as long as there's awesome explosions on TV.. its all gud.

[Timo]

Well, I suppose Obama, or our next president, can launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran, using the same logic as the last pre-emptive strike against Iraq. Sure, this time there is justifiable evidence to launch such a strike, but that only continues the logic of blowing up anyone we feel like because we don't agree with their motives or potential actions. Using that logic to start wars is way too easy, and can be abused, just like it was in Iraq. Once we start, we'll never stop, and the US will become the evil empire that Iran currently believes we are. Obama is deliberately NOT starting a war with Iran, but I concede that is probably the only way to stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb. It's a tough call to make, bomb now or bomb later. Both actions will have tremendously negative consequences. I'd rather bomb later, AFTER Iran has violated their agreement (if there ever is one) with the US and Europe not to do so. Then, and only then, can war be politically justified under international law. Doing that now would be counter-productive to our own interests in the region. Even if they do hate Israel, they are still useful to us in several other areas, like fighting ISIS.

[Keith_McClary]

Obama has already decided that one. US forces are bombing the Sunni rebels in both Iraq and Syria, thereby helping the Shia. Now the US is cooperating with Shia Iran in attacking the Sunni forces in Tikrit. And Obama's apparently going to allow Shia Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, making Iran and the Shia the regional hegemons in the Middle east.

Yeahbut, in Yemen they are backing the Saudis against the Shia.

[Plantagenet]

Well, I suppose Obama, or our next president, can launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran

????

Obama is close to signing a treaty that will allow the Iranians to keep running thousands of their centrifuges to make weapons grade plutonium and put a time limit on the treaty that will allow them to build a bomb eventually. Why in heck would you ever imagine Obama would launch a pre-emptive strike against them after he's caved in to their demands.

I'd rather bomb later, AFTER Iran has violated their agreement (if there ever is one) with the US and Europe not to do so. Then, and only then, can war be politically justified under international law.

Iran is ALREADY in violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). Thats what is causing the whole problem with Iran. I suppose its possible that Iran will follow the weak provisions of a new treaty in spite of the fact they've been violating the existing NPT treaty, but common sense suggests they'll violate the new treaty just as they did the old NPT treaty.

Even if they do hate Israel, they are still useful to us in several other areas, like fighting ISIS.

We don't have to let the Islamic Republic get nuclear weapons for them to fight the Islamic State. Iran is Shia---the Caliphate is Sunni----they've been fighting each other for 1300 years now. They'll fight whether or not we cave into Iran.

If the shia and the sunni want to fight their religious wars, there is no reason why the US has to pick sides.

Its dangerous to let any of the Islamist nut jobs ---shia or sunni---- have nuclear weapons.

And I must say I find it ironic that Obama---who campaigned on the promise of eliminating nuclear weapons----is going to the president who gives up on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and opens the gates for more nations to get nuclear weapons.

[Timo]

Let Israel start that war. That's what Republicans and Netenyahoo want anyway. If there is to be a war, and plenty of people actually do want another world war, then let someone else start it.

[Sixstrings]

our-arab-allies-are-watching-horror-obama-allies-iran

Good article.

In this cartoon from the March 18 edition of Saudi newspaper Al-Watan​, Iranian leader Khamenei is shooting at Syrian Sunnis and Iraqi Sunnis from under an American umbrella. Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Arab states are watching in horror as the U.S. increasingly openly switches sides from supporting them to supporting their (and our) worst enemy in the region.

I have argued many times for NR that the Sunnis of the Middle East may be ISIS’s base, but they are also its principal victims. The overriding object of U.S. policy in the Middle East must be to protect and ally with the Sunnis — particularly by building a coalition of moderate Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, or rather, re-building the one that Obama threw away when he withdrew all U.S. forces in 2011. Obama’s rapprochement with Iran is so wrong at so many levels it’s hard to know where to begin. But to put it in historical perspective, it’s as if, in 1989, the U.S. has led a massive assistance package and diplomatic effort to extend the life of Soviet Communism, and its subjugation of Eastern Europe, for another 30 years.

When Obama got to the White House, the Islamic Revolution of Iran was entering its fourth decade without having succeeded anywhere outside Iran except for Lebanon, in the form of the Hezbollah. (The essential bridge between Iran and Hezbollah was Syria, a majority Sunni country whose dictators are Allawite Baathist, not part of the Islamic Revolution at all). Its economy was starting to suffer the catastrophic effects of sanctions. The U.S. was the dominant stabilizing force in Iraq, underwriting the risks of a coalition of moderate Sunnis and moderate Shiites, who were openly allied with the U.S. and openly opposed to the extremists in both camps.

Now Iranian soldiers can march virtually all the way across Iraq into Syria and Lebanon not just unimpeded, but under American air cover!

What's gonna happen is that USA will wind up being viewed as "the great satan" that supports Iran and backs Iran while Iran just rolls all over the middle east.

Iran is fighting ISIS but the trouble is that at the same time Iran enables AQAP in Yemen. And Hezebollah, of course, with direct funding from Iran.

I also doubt that backing Iran can even defeat ISIS, anyway. If we're seen as a "great satan" essentially helping the shia fight the sunni -- then it will just blow back, we'll wind up with more terrorism from sunni and we'd still have all the old problems from Iranians too.

It's not like Iran is an ally, even if we did help them out, they're still going to hate us. The ayatollah still is going to call for death to America and Israel.

Obama really shouldn't have pulled the last residual forces out of Iraq.

Iraq was actually doing okay with a few US forces holding it together -- if we need to draw down somewhere, actually pulling out of a Germany would have been better, Germany won't fall apart without us.

Pulling out of Iraq cased it to fall apart, and then you had ISIS move in and before that IRAN moved in, controlling the Iraqis in our absence, and they also pushed all the sunni out of Baghdad.

Overall, big picture -- we can't be allied to Iran. Iran the state is out to take us down, and they're out for Israel, and they're allied to the Russians too. They're against all our state allies in the region.

It's just all really screwed up.

I know ISIS is horrible and so bad we've never seen anything like it, and they've got to be eliminated -- BUT WE CAN'T ALLY IRAN either. That's just too f*cked up, folks. We could be cheering the Iranian Army fighting ISIS on Tuesday, then oops wtf there they go rolling on Israel or the Saudis on Thursday maybe.

Iran may wipe ISIS out, but we're trading one caliphate for the ayatollah's caliphate.

ISIS doesn't have nukes -- the ayatollah will, and with missiles sold to them from Russia to put their nukes on.

ISIS has to be eliminated but we just need to do that as the King of Jordan is, and even though Jordan is Sunni. Obama can't fight ISIS though by just backing the Ayatollah in Iran rolling over the middle east -- we just can't do that I think, it's a threat to sacred Israel, it's a threat to all our US allies, it's a threat to world oil supply, just letting Iran start a major war over there. And it would all blowback on us, if we're seen as helping Iran, and we'd get more terrorism out of that.

Actually what Obama is doing right now is HELPING TWO SIDES AT ONCE, he's helping Iran in the north and the Saudis in the south. It's really screwed up.

And how can we get sunni allies to fight ISIS if we are seen as helping their enemy, Iran. It's counterproductive.

I think we could have fought ISIS without bowing to the ayatollah either. Just as Jordan fought ISIS, even though they are sunni and so is ISIS. Obama and John Kerry needs to be careful, they can't just start backing the ayatollah in Iran out of nowhere, they're aiding two sides at once that are both at war with each other and it's messed up.

I saw on tv that Hezbollah issued a warning against Saudi Arabia:

Hezbollah Calls on Saudi Arabia to Immediately Halt Its Aggression on Yemen

Hezbollah offered the Yemeni people deep condolences for the large number of martyrs who were claimed by the Saudi-led offensive.
http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?fromval=2&cid=19&frid=21&seccatid=19&eid=203025

Iran Condemns Saudi Arabia’s Military Intervention in Yemen
http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-condemns-saudi-arabias-military-intervention-in-yemen-1427366776

Saudis preparing to face Iran's allies in Yemen
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4640756,00.html

[Cid_Yama]

Your right, Agent. If it's too complex to fit into a sound bite, they wouldn't understand anyway.

6 is a perfect example. They haven't told him what to think yet, so his mind sits, running on idle.

[Sixstrings]

Your right, Agent. If it's too complex to fit into a sound bite, they wouldn't understand anyway.

6 is a perfect example. They haven't told him what to think yet, so his mind sits, running on idle.

No, Cid, I understand it. See my posts in the other thread. I put it in members only open, to be considerate of those that would like only oil-new threads on the public forum.

Anyhow, I understand it Cid, and actually Republicans were right and Obama never should have pulled the last residual forces out of Iraq -- that's what led to all this. First Iran took Iraq over, then ISIS moved into northern Iraq.

And now Obama / John Kerry / the Russians / the Chinese are playing footsie with the ayatollah in Switzerland, helping him to get nukes, and we're doing air cover for Iranian Empire as they expand. Yep it's nice that Iranians fight ISIS but the problem is they're also fighting all our allies too from Israel to the Saudis. And Iran was enabling AQAP in Yemen, too, and AQAP is about as much a threat to us as ISIS is. (remember folks? AQ attacked NYC?)

ISIS may be defeated, but then wtf do you do with a nuclear ayatollah at the Gates of Jerusalem.

Obama's trading one caliphate, for another, and endangering Israel and all the US allies down there.

ISIS must be eliminated, but not at the cost of a Persian host at the Gates of Jerusalem, and maybe invading Saudi Arabia too -- that's not an option. Obama has really screwed everything up. He should have stuck by Israel to begin with. And just stuck by the King of Jordan too, and just fight ISIS along with the Jordanians but don't go and give USAF air cover to the rampaging Persian Army and give the ayatollah nukes for goodness sake.

[Withnail]

So is it OK to bomb neighbouring countries now?

I thought we said nobody was allowed to do that.

[Cid_Yama]

So 6, are you trying to say the Middle East isn't about oil?

Like we would even give a shit about the Middle East, if there wasn't any oil?

What caused the problem in Iraq was your heroes in the Bush Administration deposing Saddam Hussein who was holding back the tide of Shia. Everything else has been trying to clean up their mess.

You haven't convinced me you even HAVE a mind of your own.

Now go ahead and try to tell me Saddam Hussein had WMD and was responsible for 9/11. There are lots of countries around the world that have WMD, but Iraq wasn't one of them. (Saudi Arabia was responsible for 9/11, but Americans aren't allowed to even think that. The US military was showing reluctance to leave Saudi Arabia after Gulf War I, and the Saudis feared they would be next.)

The first thing we did in Iraq was capture the Oil ministry and re-price the oil from Euros back to US dollars. (and secure the oil fields, of course)

It was all about Iraq's challenge to US dollar hegemony. He showed the world the US Achille's Heel. And our response just confirmed it.

[Sixstrings]

In the news, Obama and John Kerry give in to all Iranian demands on the "nuke deal."

U.S. Caves to Key Iranian Demands as Nuke Deal Comes Together
Limited options for Congress as Obama seeks to bypass lawmakers

LAUSSANE, Switzerland—The Obama administration is giving in to Iranian demands about the scope of its nuclear program as negotiators work to finalize a framework agreement in the coming days, according to sources familiar with the administration’s position in the negotiations.

U.S. negotiators are said to have given up ground on demands that Iran be forced to disclose the full range of its nuclear activities at the outset of a nuclear deal, a concession experts say would gut the verification the Obama administration has vowed would stand as the crux of a deal with Iran.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/u-s-caves-to-key-iranian-demands-as-nuke-deal-comes-together/

[Cid_Yama]

I see part of your problem. You are getting fed nonsense because you go to far-right blogs. Since we already know Republicans have been trying to scuttle the negotiations at all costs, they are certainly not to be trusted, especially when citing unnamed sources.

These are multinational negotiations. The US couldn't unilaterally give up anything to Iran not agreed to by the other participating nations, even if they wanted to.

This thread is not about Iran or the nuclear talks. Please try to stay relevant to the topic at hand.

I know. They haven't given you your marching orders yet, so you don't know what you are supposed to think about the topic at hand, but please try.

[autonomous]

The Saudi military is notoriously unreliable and not likely to do very well in a war against Yemeni rebels. The nightmare scenario would be clumsy use of military force resulting in de-stabilisation within Saudi Arabia. Houthis are already responding to the Saudi attacks through hit and run tactics which worked well for them during Operation Scorched Earth, a Saudi/Houthi conflict that occurred during 2009-2010 and ended in stalemate. During this conflict the Houthis were able to capture and hold dozens of positions within Saudi Arabia. The Houthis have numerous allies in the region, including Hezbollah which have been credited with bringing down several aircraft in the previous conflict with Saudi Arabia, Somali ground forces which fought alongside Houthis as well as logistical support from various Shia entities including Iran.

There are a number of vulnerabilities within the Saudi infrastructure as well as regions of political instability which could have disastrous consequences for the Saudi regime as a result of this war.

● The country’s pipeline network remains a key area of concern, due to its sheer size and complexity. Sections of the pipeline network run through unstable population centers.
● The Kingdom’s precarious economic situation over recent years, in addition to the problem of widespread poverty and corruption in the oil-rich nation, could metastasize into a security threat by vigilante groups and disaffected Saudi citizens unconnected to any particular religious or nationalist agenda.
● While much attention has been paid to the threat posed by Al-Qaeda, Shi’a elements pose as much of a threat to the security of the oil infrastructure, particularly since the bulk of this infrastructure is located in Saudi Arabia’s predominantly Shi’a volatile Eastern Province.

http://www.gulfinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Threats_to_the_Saudi_Oil_Infrastructure.pdf