Want to Punish Saudi Arabia? Cut Off Its Weapons Supply
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
1. Securing the supply lines of the West and the stability of the world economy.
2. SA playing nice with Western powers and thanking them for their support. Not the other way around. The regional enemies of SA are Iran and Yemen. They have a strong behind-the-scenes intelligence relationship with Israel. They would do fine with Russian or Chinese weapons. Hell, they have enough money to kick-off their own military industrial complex.
I don't think the details of the arms deal are public but I suspect a lot of the money goes into "maintenance" from the weapons suppliers, not in technology transfer. They remain a vassal state to the US.
Their domestic human rights situation is despicable and disgusting, and I hate to find myself defending SA but the fake outrage over their foreign policy is highly irritating. They are no worse in that respect than any other country in the world, in fact the scale of their direct malfeasance is mostly regional. Countries with global reach have done worse in my eyes.
Wishful thinking.
Maybe! Hard to know if that's the extent of your comment. Care to explain why you think so?
The fastest way to lose global political influence is to send your allies to buy weapons from your adversaries. How did it work with North Korea, Iran and Syria?
When France cut off Israel’s weapon supplies in the late 1960s, all it did was to accelerate the development of the Israeli defense industry and replacement of all French hardware with US one. During this process, France lost any political influence it might have had on Israel - and arguably, the region - and irreversibly hurt its defense industry going forward.
That aside, Western ideals are just that in the Middle East - ideals. The reality is somewhat more complicated.
So let them have weapons. Western weapons are at least more precise and less crude than the alternatives. The worst wars were waged with teens wielding AK47s, not with F15s dropping precision munitions. Taking away weapons will not eliminate the underlying hostilities.
Finally, Saudi Arabia never pursued a nuclear program as it felt shielded by the West. Taking away its means to defend itself would make it an immensely more dangerous, rich and capable North Korea.
Saudi use of US precision weapons systems has been far from precise.
It still depends on weapon system operator skill, as well as rules of engagement, IE not knowingly targeting civilians or having much higher thresholds for civilian casualties.
As far as Saudi nuclear development, the Saudis have never been know for doing things themselves, preferring to hire mercenaries.
In the case of nuclear development, I think it’s safe to say that Saudi financing for Pakistani nuclear development (directly or tangentially) represents a nuclear program by proxy.
If push came to shove, I could easily imagine Pakistan flying several “leased” nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia to:
1) ensure Saudi regime continuity
2) enhance existing Pakistani influence with Saudi
What? Nothing like that situation happened in any of your examples. North Korea went from Japanese to Soviet control due to WWII treaties, Iran revolted against US control, and Syria happily bought US arms until the civil war started.
>When France cut off Israel’s weapon supplies in the late 1960s, all it did was to accelerate the development of the Israeli defense industry and replacement of all French hardware with US one.
This is pretending that they ever really lacked the support of the US, or that the UK support wasn't omnipresent as well. And, this directly contradicts your last point, as Israel was already shielded by the West yet pursued a nuclear program.
Israel was under a US arms export embargo up until the late 60s, for all intents and purposes. Israel was never shielded by the West - there has never been direct military intervention in Israel’s favor. This, combined with the trauma left by the holocaust only couple of decades prior, and the calls to the destruction of Israel - unprecedented that a country had its legitimacy disputed like this in world politics - have made it pursue nuclear weapons.
It was the threat of those weapons, in part, that brought Israel closer to the USA (see the emergency airlift of US military equipment to Israel during the war of 1973). No one wanted a desperate, nuclear state with its back to the wall.
Today, Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia behave in line with Western interests because they feel embraced and protected. In the face of an imminent threat from Iran, they rely on Western arms and support. Show them you’re taking this support away for matters of public appearance, and the only choice those countries would have is to develop WMDs, both for deterrence and as the ultimate bargaining chip.
Really? They're the "threats?" How much Korean, Iranian, and Syrian blood is on the hands of Western arms dealers? Any "threat" they pose is a direct reaction to hostility from Western powers. If we want to stop the threat, we should stop threatening them.
>Israel was under a US arms export embargo up until the late 60s, for all intents and purposes. Israel was never shielded by the West - there has never been direct military intervention in Israel’s favor. This, combined with the trauma left by the holocaust only couple of decades prior, and the calls to the destruction of Israel - unprecedented that a country had its legitimacy disputed like this in world politics - have made it pursue nuclear weapons.
What? US started importing to Israel in 1960, and both France and the UK aided Israel in the Suez Crisis, followed by heavy US support in the Yom Kippur war as you mentioned. And if millions of your people getting killed followed by a continued call for your destruction are legitimate reasons for a nuclear program then nobody can object to North Korea's.
>Today, Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia behave in line with Western interests because they feel embraced and protected. In the face of an imminent threat from Iran, they rely on Western arms and support.
Or because the US is a far greater threat than Iran, given what they've done in the region.
This is patently incorrect.
1. There Wahabi radical islamic movement was largely funded by SA at it's inception. SA continues to be it's largest donor, both in money and security. This movement has brought the world the 9/11 attacks, Al Queda, terrorism world wide, and has radicalised liberal Islamic populations.
2. They're brutalistic about Shias - i.e. they refuse Shias (from Syria) refugee status, and continue funding any military action that targets Shias.
3. They play a central role in money laundering of terrorist funds.
If there ever was one country to blame for today's international unstable, religion fueled geopolitical mess, it would be SA.
True, and for the anecdote. My family suffered from this directly as we had to flee a country for another because of the rise of Saudi funded radicalism.
With that said, all the things you quote (increased radicalization, terrorism etc.) are mostly - and it hurts to say this - spectacular inconveniences in terms of scale.
And I prefaced this to let you know that I don't see the terrorism from a pure Western perspective where there is one such act every now and then. I know that there are many atrocities which we don't hear about (e.g the 2007 Yazidi bombings).
Yet, if you compare all of these punctual tragedies with the damage, violent deaths, and chaos that the second gulf war has brought. You must see that the two process have different magnitudes and inverse shock values for western audiences.
>2. They're brutalistic about Shias - i.e. they refuse Shias (from Syria) refugee status, and continue funding any military action that targets Shias.
True, obviously this goes both ways though. Sectarian disputes have always been ugly in the region.
>3. They play a central role in money laundering of terrorist funds.
See my first point, I think that in the grand scheme of things terrorism does not matter much. It's evil and despicable and spectacular, and that's about it.
Their airstrikes on Yemen require US military assistance, and without active support for their blockades they would be seen as the war crimes that they are and would halt immediately. Maybe they could still wage war without the US, the toll on the population would be dramatically higher and the regime would not be able to maintain stability.
>They remain a vassal state to the US.
>Countries with global reach have done worse in my eyes.
These are the acts of the United States. Full stop. They can only happen because of the US and they serve US interests. That's how vassals are. This isn't some global match for supremacy with Russia and China, this is the imperial desire of the US.
Supporting Russia's arms industry can hurt you far more directly. Income flows to research, competing with your arms everywhere and endangering your own soldiers.
That doesn't mean you can't influence SA. You can limit (or offer) access to certain weapons systems, refuse access to some investments in the West, ask for a token sacrifice to appease the press, etc.
Russia may not have the money to build it in numbers, but for sure they have the technology. The fighter aircrafts are very capable and the F-35 may well be a one trick pony (can't fly fast, can't dog fight, can't carry a huge load, needs tons of maintenance, is invisible to 3rd world countries and may or may not be visible to China or Russia).
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/stealth-killer-russia...
https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-russian-su-35-pilot-f...
This military blog says the US may not be able to match the Russians in missile technology: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/
It's probably not very polite to say that sort of thing in military-industrial complex circles though (too much money riding on the F-35).
At the macro human level this is simply disgusting what the Saudis have done.
At the macro geopolitical level this is a truly cringeworthy embarrassment for the Saudis.
However, this is what happens when control of trillions of dollars of essential natural resources is at stake.
I would remind Hacker News readers that millions were slaughtered in the 70’s by the Khmer Rouge for control with none of the massive cashflow and geopolitical influence stemming from it.
In other words, the blood will flow to ensure continuity of control & flow of oil. Period.
Just look at Saudi actions in Yemen slaughtering everyone with reckless abandon(mostly via proxy) as it represents a possible beachhead at bringing down the Saudi regime.
Kind of like the Saudis in the role of the Germans at D-Day.
Military sales to Saudi serve 2 purposes:
1) Saudi/GCC military contracts are padded heavily to act as platforms for massive kickbacks to GCC royal families and connected insiders.
Military sales are cashflow for corrupt GCC royals and insiders.
2) Military sales to the GCC represent petro-dollar recycling to balance trade between GCC countries and their petro customers.
Check out the Al Yamamah arms deal between UK/Saudi that started in the 1980’s. Journalists found proof of corruption but further publication was halted as a matter of national security due to pressure from the Saudis that would have cancelled deals and led to the layoffs of tens of thousands of high paying jobs.
Realpolitik is not an easy issue.
Selling military equipment to Saudi/GCC is a bad idea, but may be a less bad idea as they do have options waiting in the wings(Russia/China).
Ultimately, I think Saudi Arabia will attempt to avoid becoming like the Shah/Iran post 1979 much as China has avoided becoming like Russia post 1991. Regardless of the volume of bloodletting,
The Mossad/Israel was publicly embarrassed with an assassination it conducted in Dubai in 2010.
I doubt the Saudis care as much about their international reputation as the Israelis.
Was it? So much of the news coverage of the Dubai assassination seemed to focus on how intricate the operation was and how it worked like clockwork, all very impressive. A team of spies spread out across Dubai, wearing disguises and even successfully dealing with unforeseen obstacles, seemed pretty romantic somehow, definitely more than a dissident just walking into his own country’s embassy and being killed there. And Israel was probably well aware of its agents being caught on CCTV, so the revelation of the operation was no embarrassment for the Mossad. On the other hand, I’m sure the Saudis wish that this whole episode could have passed unnoticed and that people would just believe Khashoggi left the embassy of his own accord.
But Israel also has had a longstanding Donald Trump-esque view of not caring what other countries think.
For example, Israel has done some really dodgy things with NZ passports, got caught with its hand in the proverbial cookie jar and was embarrassed politically.
A few years later it did something similar again.
So I think embarrassment is a question of personal/national perspective.
From an operational standpoint, Israel may have permanently burned up to 2 dozen shooters and operational support personnel/facilitators from ever conducting external operations again.
Those people take many years to vet, train, and trust.
That's a lot of expensive chess pieces to remove one bishop or rook.
Am I the only one who feels it's odd to so loudly declare that they have all this evidence... and then not let us see it? Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I have this feeling that means we'll never see it and the fact that we didn't will get memory holed later.
I honestly don't know what to make of this whole situation. I obviously don't like the idea that someone has been murdered and dismembered, but I get the feeling that a lot more is in play here than I can even pretend to understand because there are a lot of people who want to take over the area and resources, so I don't know what information we can even trust.
Sometimes hard to tell with diplomatic incidents like this whether its publicly disclosed or not.
It was disclosed publicly and very very quickly in Dubai 2010.
In that case I think the speed, comprehensiveness, and thoroughness of the surveillance disclosure was a shock to casual security observers.
That's the thing though, we have to guess. We don't have the evidence and many of us might not be able to understand it if we did.
This wouldn't be such a problem, except these incidents tend to end up being used as justification for military actions to murder more people. And on that point, I sincerely hope to be proven completely and utterly wrong by future events.
Possibly a geopolitical poker bluff, but unlikely something two countries would openly state(not just leak) if untrue.
As bad as it sounds, punishing, but not overthrowing them might be the best option. Of course tighten this screw and loosen this one is a game, but if played correctly they'll tow the line. Maybe show them a video of Muammar Gaddafi's last minutes?
There’s no such thing as “best” in this game, because the enemy won’t give you the fight you want, but the fight they want. Well, unless they as stupid like Saddam was, but that’s not something you can count on.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-sanctions/u-s-...
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/05/asia/india-s400-deal-intl/ind...
Better to make him go into his pants a few times and remind him things like Saddam, Qaddafi etc etc and how fast his regime can go. Remind him what would happen to his power, money and family if USA stopped supporting them. USA can send a fax and have MBS replaced. And by the way, release another 1 million barrels of oil a day to lower the price.
I'd rather the US and NATO address the thousands of civilians that Saudi is killing in Yemen. That's an excellent reason not to sell weapons to them, but I must be the only one that thinks so...
So, what did we win? Scare the crap out of them or have the King choose a new person to take over after he's dead.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/13/saudi-arabia-k...
Maybe it is a signal of the current times we are in but I can't read a NYTimes article talking about Trump/current administration and not feel conflicted that it will biased against him/them. Indeed, one of the tragedies of the past couple of years for me is this realization that even centuries-old trusted press outlets like NYTimes are inherently biased (and doesn't represent the thoughts on all Americans).
If Trump was threatening to cut off MBS's weapons supplies, the article would be written talking about all of the potential negative ramifications.
I feel WSJ is at least more neutral (but it could be leaning right though I am not sure) and tries to analyze topics more principally vs. emotionally/morally.
Even my left leaning parents, both of whom are life long New York liberals, have ditched NYT almost entirely and now read WSJ daily.
To me it seems that both the media and Trump distort, spin and misrepresent things with nearly every sentence they utter. Different sides of the same coin.
For example free speech.
At various times, those values have come in conflict with particular groups in power (and their source of power). So in those cases their can be a sort of bias that is hard to avoid.