German intelligence: Saudi Arabia is playing a destabilizing role in the M.East
independent.co.uk
independent.co.uk
edit: I undertand it's a big step to see a government agency make an official announcement that will have a lot of diplomatic fallout. The big news is that the BND said it, not that someone was surprised by what they said.
Now, at least, se can all talk about the elephant in the room.
When the national intelligence agency "independently" makes such a claim, it allows the leadership to defer proof. Additionally, it provides a subtle message of credibility and hints that "they" know something "we" don't.
- Exporting IEDs that were used against coalition troops in Iraq
- Supporting Hamas and Hezbollah
Plus all the other items on this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro...
It's also worth pointing out that Iran has a very weak military compared to its neighbours:
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-conventional-military-...
I honestly have no idea where the hate for Iran comes from. They really haven't done much to hurt US interests, even though they lost 10s of 1000s of men in the Iran-Iraq war as a direct result of US involvement.
And why would the US get more blame than the USSR or France and Germany? The USSR sent soldiers and pilots to fight for Saddam.
Why did the US continue to support ISIS even after it was clear they were becoming a serious threat in the region?
Why did Turkey continue to buy oil from ISIS even after ISIS started executing innocent people?
http://uk.businessinsider.com/links-between-turkey-and-isis-...
The point is, the whole thing is a mess, and not one of the main countries involved is free from blame. The most messed up thing from a political point of view is that Turkey are a member of NATO, in other words we're fighting a group that's funded by allies of US and Europe. Throw Russia in the mix with its support of Assad and we really could be looking at the start of World War 3. Of course I hope it doesn't come to that, but it does seem plausible.
> "The USSR sent soldiers and pilots to fight for Saddam."
Are you referring to the Gulf War (1990) or the Iraq War (2003)?
>>They really haven't done much to hurt US interests
This is laughably false.
It's not as straightforward as that:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tehran/axis/te...
Here's a key quote (from Robert Baer, a former CIA officer):
"And how important [is] Hezbollah? ...
It's extremely important. Hezbollah's divided into many parties. There's the Islamic Resistance in the south, which beat the Israelis. They attacked the Israeli army. They defeated the Israeli army on Lebanese soil. I do not know how we can describe that other than a national liberation movement.
I don't agree that Hezbollah itself is a terrorist organization. It delivers powdered milk; it takes care of people. It's a social organization; it's a political organization. It fights corruption.
Then there's the Islamic Resistance, which is an army, which is a guerrilla force, fighting for control of its own country. And then, under the Hezbollah umbrella, was the Islamic Jihad, which I call their special security, which was controlled by Iran, which carried out terrorism against the West. And you can paint Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. You can do that for political reasons, but strictly speaking, it is many things. Just as [with] the IRA, you got Sinn Fein and you've got the real IRA, which is conducting terrorism."
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/houthi-rebels-destroy-m1-ab...
Iran has not invaded or subverted Iraq, Syria, Libya.
Iran did not invade Afghanistan. (USSR, NATO).
Iran did not train and arm the Taliban.
Iran did not create ISIS (or whatever is their acronym du jour.)
This isn't fox news forum. This is HN.
19/20 hijackers were Saudi (and more recently, so was one of the San Bernardino shooters, for all practical purposes). UBL was Saudi. Please point out to me terrorists with similar profiles who are/were Iranian.
Iran's funding of Hezbollah can be legitimately seen as defending their own interests. Just like we fund scores of militias all over the region.
Which part of assassinating Lebanese politicians, kidnapping and torturing soldiers, starting a war with a nuclear-armed state, and randomly firing unguided rockets into civilian towns can be legitimately seen as defending Iran's own interests?
In case you can't tell, I believe that line of reasoning is complete garbage.
Improving economic outlook reduces the pool of recruits, but the GP is questioning the long-term macroeconomic outlook in the region, and in turn questions the long-term viability of harming extremist recruiting by improving job prospects for young unmarried men.
You can't do that, it would be like declaring war against Islam, since the Saudi are "custodian" of Muslim holly places like Mecca.
Furthermore, while most hijackers were Saudi and Egyptian, ISI, Pakistani secret services financed the attacks. But you can't really destabilize Pakistan either, since they have they are an nuclear power.
Basically, we are in a situation, I believe, where western nations are faking their war on terror, for various reasons (they can't tackle the Saudi issue, for instance). All the countries that were invaded/attacked by the west since 9/11, safe from Afghanistan, which was more or less warrant-able, had nothing to do with 9/11 : Iraq, Libya, Syria...
Discrediting the recognized government (can't really say legitimate to any government over there), is an old strategy intended to grant leverage and the eventual bargaining table.
So the West is to blame indirectly (and directly), too.