> When a raiding party from Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant attacked a Saudi border post last week...
This statement seems backward to me. Isn't ISIS supported by the Saudis to overthrow the Shiite government of Iraq?
This statement seems backward to me. Isn't ISIS supported by the Saudis to overthrow the Shiite government of Iraq?
I think it's fair to say that "the Saudis" isn't exactly a monolith in this regard. There's an uneasy alliance between the Wahabi clerisy (who in turn keep the people relatively content) and the house of Saud, who again aren't exactly monolithic, but some of whom have something that at times could be said to approach a reasonably liberal worldview (they, for sure, aren't devout Wahabis).
It would not be terribly surprising if some of the more Wahabi-aligned elements are involved in channeling funds and different kinds of support to ISIS (and the Taleban and Al Qaida, for that matter) while the other end knows that if ISIS gets free reign in Saudi Arabia, the foundation under their government can crumble very quickly.
Saudi Arabia has frustrated American policy makers for years. Ostensibly a critical ally, sheltered from its enemies by American arms and aid, the kingdom has spent untold millions promoting Wahhabism, the radical form of Sunni Islam that inspired the 9/11 hijackers and that now inflames the Islamic State.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/28/opinion/the-world-reaps-w...
The reason for this, and the mechanism by which it happens, is indeed very complicated.
I doubt either side understood a temporary alignment of interests to be anything more than that. Perhaps not entirely unlike what you saw in the eighties with the U.S. and the Mujahideen. There's probably even more appropriate examples from the same conflict with Russia, Turkey, U.S. et al supporting various factions.
The narrative pushed by many journalists that ISIS is a Saudi ally is a complete fiction and big slander against the Saudis, who are very aggressive against ISIS.. The two have been at war since ISIS began.
I've lived in the UAE, and I can tell you that they have a very hard stance on terrorism, both domestic and international. For example, the UAE has been bombing ISIS from the start. The same applies for Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar.
In this context, it's interesting to consider the growth of US Shale Oil and the lifting of sanctions on Iran, who apparently have made an agreement with OPEC, on which the Saudis took a production hit just to get it over the line (iron clad, because it's not like anyone has ever defected from an OPEC cartel agreement...)
War Tard is a great read on this: http://wartard.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/the-geopolitics-of-20... . It's a shame he seems to be posting at a rate of about once a year now...
In an openness spectrum, Saudi is a zero, and Isis is in the negatives. But they all look like they're a lower number to us so people just lumped them together. But even the saudis say ISIS are extremists.
It should be noted that al-Qaeda, while being an outgrowth of the Wahhabism that Saudi Arabia nurtures, has targeted Saudi Arabia ever since the Gulf War due to American-Saudi cooperation back then. All of the Middle Eastern regimes are considered desirable targets to al-Qaeda--this is the distinction between the "near enemy" and the "far enemy."
I actually think we're on the same page here - a government can publicly have one position, while it's people have another.
Are you implying that government officials are funding ISIS? Or do you mean "government" as in "the country is governed by its people"?
If it's the former, please provide evidence. If it's the latter, recall that KSA is a full-blown monarchy, so the people != the ruling elite.
My point is that a government can have a public position, even actively fight for it - however at the same time, it's private citizens (both in the gov and not) can have another position.
This is a larger topic than HN can and should be host to ... thanks for the debate.
Perhaps, but when you make such statements, the burden of proof is on you.
> My point is that a government can have a public position, even actively fight for it
I'm sure that there probably are ISIS apologists among Saudis - I'd argue that they are few in number - but it's nonetheless important to make the distinction between the government and regular citizens. Furthermore, you seem to be ignoring the fact that such activity is outright illegal, so it's not as if the government is OK with Saudi ISIS supporters.
We love selling them cluster bombs.
The sooner we divest from oil reliance the better; hopefully this awful Trump presidency will give the left a mandate to do this in 4 years.
De-carbonising the US economy to achieve energy-self-reliance through locally produced renewables through policy (as opposed to eg solar being market-competitive and taking over at scale through market processes) will take decades and be way out of reach for any one president to see through -- it will require a much deeper (in practise, bipartisan congressional) commitment. Also, anyway, these are not exclusive options. It's not materially different to decarbonise from domestically produced oil than from Saudi produced oil -- indeed, it might be easier, as domestic oil is fairly expensive and Saudi is pretty cheap.
1: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/15/politics/congress-releases...
In addition, they are permitting the pipelines from the Canadian tar sands, which will increase Gulf of Mexico refinery output.
The slight rise of international crude prices combined with an energy-friendly Administration has spurred domestic producers, especially frackers, to increase production.
The likelihood of continued war in the Middle East, sanctions on Russia, and economic turmoil in Venezuela all are causing a big push to move away from these foreign energy sources. It's quite likely that over the next twenty years, the U.S. will emerge as the world's top energy producer and also the top exporter of raw oil and gas and energy products.