Here is a more thorough article on Lebanon's reaction:

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/197086-lebanon-joins-saudi-led-anti-terrorism-coalition-as-salam-hails-move

Posted by: upsetter | Dec 16 2015 13:46 utc | 1

Ah, back among the living eh? Cheers.
The ME is a slumgullion mix and Russia still leads a way out of the fog...

Posted by: V. Arnold | Dec 16 2015 13:48 utc | 2

When are they going to have a democracy?
Oh, and women driving cars?

Posted by: xxx | Dec 16 2015 13:57 utc | 3

I thought there was supposed to be considerable dissatisfaction with Salman and his son, among the Saudi princes. And a risk of a palace coup, with a change of regime. Has anyone got an update on that?

Posted by: Laguerre | Dec 16 2015 14:01 utc | 4

McCain: We would also target Assad. Assad right now is killing the people we armed and trained and equipped. tough talk from a man whose underwear comes in a plastic egg and who spent HIS war flying a feces filled cage and caging cigarettes from the guards by ratting out his "cellies". These fuckers are nuts. I'm ready to seek asylum at the nearest Russian Embassy

Posted by: ruben | Dec 16 2015 14:16 utc | 5

Paid collaborators : It has started :(

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/saudi-pledges-8-billion-dollars-egypt-1349705491

Saudi Arabia has pledged a total of eight billion dollars in investment and aid to Egypt over the next five years, as Riyadh looks to boost military and economic ties with its ally.

Posted by: Yul | Dec 16 2015 14:27 utc | 6

It may well be that Mohammed bin Salman, as well as McCain and Graham, drank too much fermented camel milk. Neither the Saudis nor the Qataris nor any "coalition member" will send their armies to fight in Syria or Iraq.

That's a great line b, I see you're back in form, wit and all. Welcome back.

The "Coalition of the Beggars" will not send people to fight in Iraq & Syria, particularly after the Yemen debacle, Russia and Iran are too big a bite for the toothless profligate Saudi regime. There is however, the possibility they will recruit some mercenaries for Yemen, among the "beggars" the Saudis are able to bribe.

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Dec 16 2015 14:52 utc | 7

Erdogan and MBS are competing for the award of the most ridiculous megalomaniac of 2015.

Posted by: Virgule | Dec 16 2015 14:54 utc | 8

I think the US has always known that they can't count on the Saudis to further their objectives, in any valuable sense. Letting them whoop on the Yemenis is just more "Fear, Inc.", as are the annual weapons deals/largesse.

My impression over the past decade or so, is that at any point KSA may become USKSA, by force or by overwhelming threat. As international niceties break down further, I expect the whole gilded "family" to become expendable. It's quite obvious that the US is only biding its time for the inevitable. All of the arms deals, etc are just gravy. When TSHTF over there the US will just take out wide swaths of the resistance(royal, or peon) and get on with the business of locking down the resource in question, for good. Hubris.. but it is what it is.

Posted by: Ananymus | Dec 16 2015 15:02 utc | 9

I've read speculation that the stampede at the hajj was not spontaneous but was in fact engineered by Saudi and Israeli intelligence in order to provide cover for the abduction of possibly hundreds of Iranian personnel. As I understand it, the theory is that since visa applications for the pilgrimage had to be submitted months in advance, the intelligence agencies had plenty of time to target everyone they wanted.

That could be why the official number of deaths is so far off from the media estimates, and any embarrassment about the incident is surely feigned by those who orchestrated it for nefarious ends.

Posted by: Bruno Marz | Dec 16 2015 15:10 utc | 10

100 "gunman" in southern Iraq have just kidnapped a Qatari royal hunting party. They had been escorted by Iraqi military, who stood down when these 100 gunmen in trucks approached...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35112774

Double or triple false flag? Either way, the royals have been given many disturbing "signals" lately. If I were one of them I'd hole-up in my London mansion and leave my falcons kenneled for the time being.

Posted by: Ananymus | Dec 16 2015 15:11 utc | 11

@4 I'm not a royal watcher, but as with any dynastic situation, who becomes the new king is the follow up question. There are only 5000 princes with cash in the KSA, and there quite simply might not be a figure or personality anyone who is capable of emerging and then controlling the Kingdom. There might be a few old men, but the KSA is in a period of uncertainty, not awash with cash and the center of the energy world the way it was even a few years ago. A popular colonel or minister might decide a new family is needed if the Saud clan can't provide stability, and without the protection of the Kingdom, enterprising western politicians will call for the arrest of defunct Saudi princes. Exile isn't really an option for the 5,000 cash flush princes.

We have regular elections to solve this problem.

Posted by: NotTimothyGeithner | Dec 16 2015 15:12 utc | 12

b: Neither the Saudis nor the Qataris nor any "coalition member" will send their armies to fight in Syria or Iraq.

The Coalition of the Unwilling may just be a ruse to keep the pressure on Russia to agree to a political solution and to appear to be on the 'good' side.

But someone has to take and occupy ISIS-held territory. And how much of a fight would ISIS really put up against their benefactors? Given the support/tolerance ISIS has received from the Gulf Monarchies and those allied with the Gulf Monarchies (Turkey, US, Israel, mostly) skepticism is warranted. Also, in all of these 'Coalitions' it is always the case that only a small number of countries do almost all of the heavy lifting. Including other countries just provides legitimacy.

The ultimate end-game is winning the Syrian election. I have no doubt that the anti-Assad/anti-ISIS Coalition want to prevail in those elections. It strikes me that it would help if they control territory that refugees return to. But maybe doing so would jeopardize the chance for elections at all? If so, then the Saudi Islamic Army Coalition will just wait in the wings, ready to deploy if the 4+1 Coalition fails to move forward on the political solution/elections.

The Assad must go! Coalition will not accept anything less than regime change and Sunni (KSA) control of Syria. They will be supportive of all activities that move toward that goal, and will try to block or circumvent any moves that veer from that goal.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 16 2015 15:14 utc | 13

NotTimmeh, "defunct" yes that's the word I was looking for.

But exile is totally an option. In fact, how many of them have already "exiled" themselves, to every posh corner of the world you can think of?

That loudmouth disco-lord and western media darling Prince Alaweed, e.g., probably hasn't set foot in KSA for years.

Posted by: Ananymus | Dec 16 2015 15:18 utc | 14

Le Monde reported the great coalition yesterday and won't report on your findings! Instead, they had today yet another "proofs of tortures by the Syrian regime" (and probably a few bags of Saudi cash).
Could someone tell them that torture exists in many countries France is doing business with, including the US?

Posted by: Mina | Dec 16 2015 15:19 utc | 15

RT: Turkish MP faces treason charges after telling RT ISIS used Turkey for transiting sarin:

A treason investigation has been launched against a Turkish MP who alleged in an exclusive interview with RT that Islamic State jihadists delivered deadly sarin gas to Syria through Turkey.

Ankara’s Chief Prosecutor’s Office opened the case against Istanbul MP Eren Erdem of Republican People’s Party (CHP) after his interview about sarin was aired on RT on Monday.

Because certain commenters are bound to complain about RT, let me post a link to a similar story in the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet Hürriyet: Eren Erdem hakkında soruşturma başlatıldı [Investigation opened of Eren Erdem].

The Hürriyet story is partly based on the RT report, but a leading Turkish newspaper has considered the report worth publishing. And the Hürriyet story is also based on a Turkish source in Malatya, who is said to have reported the same charges.

Posted by: lysias | Dec 16 2015 15:29 utc | 16

And US has just agreed a massive arms deal with Saudi, all fits in.

Posted by: Kevin | Dec 16 2015 15:32 utc | 17

Posted by: upsetter | Dec 16, 2015 8:46:40 AM |

Here is a more thorough article on Lebanon's reaction:

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/197086-lebanon-joins-saudi-led-anti-terrorism-coalition-as-salam-hails-move

Thanks. First comment to that article:

Saudi Arabia against terrorism? How can the founder of terror fight it?

Posted by: erichwwk | Dec 16 2015 15:35 utc | 18

To the Saudis' "anti-Terr0r!sm" = "anti-blow back".

They fund the Madrassas that incubate terr0r!sm.

As Hersh wrote in "The Redirection":

Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 16 2015 15:36 utc | 19

"...When will the other members of the wider Saudi family dump these dupes?..."

Never. They're too busy living their lives of luxury in any other country BUT Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is the labor camp where their help lives. It's beneath the royal family to slum around there too much any more. Besides, the place is getting downright dangerous: Unemployed, disease-infested third-world foreigners trying to avoid deportation and angry, disenfranchised, radicalized young Saudi men. The place is overflowing with both.

"...Is there someone else who could do this?..."

Why, yes... Unemployed, disease-infested third-world foreigners trying to avoid deportation and angry, disenfranchised, radicalized young Saudi men. Both have been steeped in Wahhabism for years.

You can track down and beat the now-unneeded foreign slaves and deport them, but you can't un-Wahhabi tens of thousand of despondent young Saudi men that have no chance of a future and can't afford to leave. Their anger at the Saudi system has been simmering for years. They become angry and radicalized in an oppressive system of social controls that are designed to serve the royals and keep riff-raff like them obedient and compliant. The welfare-like handouts to the plebes are nice, but that never works for long.

The other royals are a bit uppity, but they just don't have the time or energy to stage coups. From what I can understand about most of them, they're just not interested in politics (or Saudi Arabia for that matter).

The Saudi and GCC royals do not fear Chechen or Uighur terrorists coming to the Gulf and fomenting revolutions. They fear their own people that are increasingly realizing the injustice of their lot under a privileged, profanely-wealthy and arrogant monarchies. That, and a body of Wahhabi clerics growing impatient with the royals.

The royals utilizing Wahhabism as a social control tool works great as long as you keep the clerics happy. Until the point that someone notices the emperor has no clothes and calls both the royals and clerics on their hypocrisy. Then Wahhabism becomes an excellent tool for a social revolution for throwing off the yoke of an infidel royalty and usurped clerics.

I probably don't need to spell out the rest. It usually ends badly with the royals fleeing with their sacks of money to London and the slower-moving ones relieved of their heads. The clerics will have their own bloody purges. The new Wahhabi regime will use even more oppressive social controls. The population who can will flee. The ones that can't will bear the burden of total economic and social collapse, all while being beaten regularly with rubber hoses by the new Wahhabi Stazi.

Blowback... it's what's for breakfast.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Dec 16 2015 15:44 utc | 20

If there is a Wahhabi revolution in Saudi, will the Shiites in the northeast accept it? If they don't, and they take away the oil, where will that leave Saudi?

Posted by: lysias | Dec 16 2015 15:52 utc | 21

I too am curious about the fate of the oilfields in the event of a Wahhabi revolution. I imagine the US has contingency plans for the only part of SA that really matters. It would certainly give oil prices a boost.

Posted by: dh | Dec 16 2015 16:15 utc | 22

There was an article in the Turkish newspaper Sabah yesterday about the treason investigation against Eren Erdem, before RT reported it. Sabah: CHP'li Eren Erdem'e 'Vatana İhanetten' suç duyurusu [CHP Deputy Eren Erdem Accused of Treason}.

Posted by: lysias | Dec 16 2015 16:21 utc | 23

thanks b. i hope you are better..

until wahabbism is cleansed of it's puritanical fanaticism, saudi arabia will remain the house of terrorism.. i am surprised mccain and graham haven't already converted.. what a couple of losers these 2 buffoons are..

more like who is going to end islams and the muslim worlds embarrassment over suicide bombers, terrorists and etc? won't happen until wahabbism and the clerics fomenting suicide bombers and etc. is challenged directly..

Posted by: james | Dec 16 2015 16:34 utc | 24

ZeroHedge's headline says it all: The Humiliation Is Complete: Assad Can Stay, Kerry Concedes After Meeting With Putin.

Article quotes some significant statements from the AP reporting:

As AP reports, "U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday accepted Russia's long-standing demand that President Bashar Assad's future be determined by his own people, as Washington and Moscow edged toward putting aside years of disagreement over how to end Syria's civil war."

"The United States and our partners are not seeking so-called regime change," Kerry said, adding that the focus is no longer "on our differences about what can or cannot be done immediately about Assad."

In a testament to the fact that mainstream media is beginning to understand just how weak America's negotiating position has become, AP offered the following rather sarcastic assessment:

President Barack Obama first called on Assad to leave power in the summer of 2011, with "Assad must go" being a consistent rallying cry. Later, American officials allowed that he wouldn't have to resign on "Day One" of a transition. Now, no one can say when Assad might step down

Kerry also called demands by the "moderate" opposition that Assad step down before peace negotiations begin an "obvious nonstarter."

Posted by: lysias | Dec 16 2015 16:50 utc | 25

The inclusion of some countries in West Africa in the coalition is the weirdest. Benin for example, is mainly an Africanist nation from religious point of view. Togo is the same. And even though the Islamic terrorists, Boko Haram, in the Northern Nigeria, is making international headlines, Nigeria is solidly multi-religious nation. Indeed it is hard to imagine the government of any of the African countries named in the coalition joining the Saudi bandwagon. Except if the members of the so-called coalition are the Islamic terrorist groups in those countries. Except the coalition is the coalition of Boko haram, AL shabaab and the pockets of AL Qaeda in Mali, Niger etc. Indeed I think that would be much like it; since Saudi Arabia is the matrix of Islamic terrorism.

Posted by: Sayo | Dec 16 2015 16:55 utc | 26

Loved the thread this morning. Glad you're feeling better b. Wonder where Lieberman is spending his time now. I also wonder where Soros and Adelson have been spending their money lately.

So many great comments @ PavewayIV 20, I have always thought war was the way the 2% culls disenfranchised youth [especially the angry young men]. Everyone gets to play WOW with real guns and planes. All for the Call of Duty, etc. The people at the top stay safe in their padded offices and luxury homes, sadly.

Of course Mika and friends were drooling all over Lindsey's comments last night, all agreed he was GREAT! and should be on the "big stage". Pathetic!!

Posted by: shadyl | Dec 16 2015 17:11 utc | 27

james@24 - In my limited understanding of it, any 'cleansing' of Saudi Wahhabism is impossible. It is not independent of the House of Saud. They have a symbiotic relationship and one would wither and die without the other. If the House of Saud falls, then present-day Wahhabism will die with it as well. Wahhabism and its clerics have too many political and financial links with the Royals and the country to ever stand on it's own.

The Saudi Wahhabi clerics would attempt to remain in control of whatever political body replaced the royals, but that marriage would be doomed to failure assuming the royals fled and the economy collapsed. Running Saudi Arabia as a purely religious Wahhabist state would be impossible and result in total chaos.

Wahhabi revolutionaries could hardly run the business end of the Saudi oil empire without the royals. This would assume the royals would simply walk away from the oil fields and related financial mechanisms and leave them for the taking. That's not going to happen, and the Wahhabis would be reduced to smuggling their 'illegal' oil and trading on black markets like ISIS.

The Shia workers could certainly keep the wells producing and the oil flowing, but they don't run anything on the business end. They wouldn't have a chance when the oil majors vultures moved in to pick over the bones. The Shia workers will continue to get paid to produce, but all that oil profit would be going to be going somewhere else, not to Saudi Arabia and the Wahhabis and not to the Shia oil workers. One wonders how long an arrangement like that could even last (presuming they could even cobble one together).

The current arrangement (Wahhabi/House of Saud) could only continue under a coup scenario providing the clerics, royals, oil workers and population were happy with the change. There's way too many plates in the air. I just can't see an easy transition even if the House of Saud remained in place. Transitions are always a good time for other internal or external opportunists to make a move, and they have to be lined up ten-deep by now.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Dec 16 2015 17:20 utc | 28

If the Shiah workers in Saudi can't run the business end of the oil business, couldn't Iran supply people who could?

Posted by: lysias | Dec 16 2015 17:28 utc | 29

Saudis are humiliated on all sides as they are loosing the momentum in Yemen and Syria. Thus the unilateral and pompous announcement of a Sunni military "coalition" by the young Saudi Ninja is one more desperate attempt to deny the kingdom's impotence in front of the events unraveling on the military and political scene. No one takes that announcement seriously.
Whatever the Saudis proclaim and do, 2016 may see the growing Iran and Russian's influence in the region...for better or worse.

Posted by: virgile | Dec 16 2015 18:01 utc | 30

PavewayIV @28,

The world will be a far, far better place when the Wahhabist Saudi Arabian royals all lose their heads.

Posted by: Cynthia | Dec 16 2015 18:32 utc | 31

#27 "Of course Mika and friends were drooling all over Lindsey's comments last night.."

After all, consider the source. Zig still considers supporting the mujahideen against the Russians his stroke of genius. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Posted by: caspar | Dec 16 2015 18:33 utc | 32

https://www.rt.com/news/326138-turkish-troops-isis-attack/

Turkey claims ISIS fired 300 120mm mortars at their base in Bashiqa and 70 troops are missing.

Hopefully this isn't a pretext for a much larger force to invade and 'save' these 'missing' soldiers.

Posted by: WG | Dec 16 2015 18:33 utc | 33

"...If the Shiah workers in Saudi can't run the business end of the oil business, couldn't Iran supply people who could?..."

It's not that simple, lysias. There are layers and layers of owners in all aspects of oil production. If the Shia carved off the oil fields and declared their own country, then set up the entire state mechanism for title and control, then convinced the rest of the world that they were the legal owners of all of it now and anyone doing business with them wasn't subject to massive lawsuits by the 'former' owners... then, yes - I suppose the Iranians or someone could come in and run the business part.

However, there are going to be people running whatever is left in the 'old' Saudi Arabia who will have a big problem with that, and there are going to be the hundreds of royals that claim they personally own various pieces of it. It would take 50 years of litigation AFTER the decade-long bloody war for the northern Shia to begin to establish any ownership.

And since Shia are involved, we (the U.S.) will finally have to attack Iran at Israel's insistence. The West's entire understanding of Shi'ite Islam is that all Shia are secretly controlled by evil clerics in Iran and they plan to take over the world and destroy Israel once and for all. If Shia were involved in northern Saudi Arabia, then it must be an Iranian plot.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Dec 16 2015 18:41 utc | 34

Cynthia@31 That's not fair. Head-chopper sponsors are people, too! Maybe they just need a hug. Have you ever hugged a Saudi royal? Of course not. Maybe that's why they're so angry. Well, that and the fact that you are allowed to drive a car. They don't go for that infidel nonsense.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Dec 16 2015 18:49 utc | 35

It starts to make sense. First, USiAns had planned to bury the hatchet with Iran which was vehemently opposed by Riyadh and Jerusalem. Then the USiAns have just decided to abandon the "Assad must go" coalition. Turkey got wind of it and invaded northern Iraq. KSA got wind of it and suddenly the Prince announces his own coalition of 35 bribed and coerced countries. But without the solid backing of the Egyptian army or the Pakistan's army the so called Saudi led coalition is a bad joke. Why is the USiAn government being less belligerent towards Iran and Russia all of a sudden? What else is going on? The USiAns want in Central Asia to be part and parcel of the Silk Roads. KSA friendship is unhelpful and Turkish friendship is unhelpful relative to Asian countries that are adverse to sunni inspired terrorism. But is that all there is to it? What is going on here? Can someone help? Thanks!

Posted by: Sun Tzu | Dec 16 2015 18:51 utc | 36

@ PavewayIV.. all your posts are typically excellent and informative, so thanks for posting here at moa.. it's much appreciated.

@36 sun tzu.. shifting sands my friend... where it all lands is anyone's guess, but we are in a real uptick of a transition here.. i think the positions are being made on the fly as folks don't want to get caught on the wrong side of history.. i feel what is happening in the next few years will set the stage for many years to come.

Posted by: james | Dec 16 2015 19:10 utc | 37

Legal claims don't seem to be stopping ISIS from selling the oil from the wells it has seized.

Posted by: lysias | Dec 16 2015 19:30 utc | 38

Obama from before his 1st. election showed that he wanted to get out of ME imbroglio (no wars, no boots, etc., against Iraq war, etc.) and was determined to bring Iran out of the cold. Kerry had a similar view. Has now happened. I posted before about this with links … (Google Obama Kerry Iran with back dates.)

KSA was horrified, dismayed, angry. As time went on, KSA was destabilised and went its own way, trying to take more power in the region. The obvious are the lowering of oil price, OPEC, which imho had nothing to do with Russia, but was designed to scotch the US fracking industry and make US oil imports - KSA dependent once more, or to a higher degree than previous. It also adopted a more independent foreign policy, e.g. Bahrein (ignored), as well as support of various factions against Assad. The US created a disaster in Iraq, it thus became open to Iranian influence, which is now strong. (? idk really.) Assad, as allied with Iran is the no. 1 arch enemy. Syria, Iraq, allied with Iran ??? from the pov of KSA - Yikes!

So KSA moved muscle and attacked Yemen, yes *very* logical, (which btw afaik the US disaproved of), a regional power move. KSA has bought from 2010-15, 80 billion in arms, mostly from the US, also from GB, France, Canada. Heh. Number is fanciful, unattested, it would be nice to know the real sum.

Now IS is a danger to all the Gulfies. The genie that escaped the bottle. (Say.)

Coalitions are all the rage (after US invasion of Iraq for recent history) but they are not worth the paper they are written on. If there even is any paper, maybe twitter from a keen coke-addled upstart?

Just one pov from one angle, others can be just as valid.

Posted by: Noirette | Dec 16 2015 19:31 utc | 39

Maybe people in the U.S. government are waking up to the fact that, far from having irreconcilable differences with Iran and Russia, they are our natural allies.

Meanwhile, our ostensible allies Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have only been creating problems for us.

Posted by: lysias | Dec 16 2015 19:33 utc | 40

@ lysias | 38

Legal claims don't seem to be stopping ISIS from selling the oil from the wells it has seized.

Kurds also are grabbing territory and as many oil wells as they can, and the West has zero problems with it, actually helping it happen.

Posted by: Harry | Dec 16 2015 19:50 utc | 41

Thanks james @ 37 shifting sands? all wars are bankers wars! are we next to an economic collapse?

@ noirette #39 & lysias #40

another pov

Could it be that Europeans started to tell Washington through back channels that the likes of Le Pen are set to win the elections if you keep pushing us too hard to be friends with ISIL sponsors Turkey, KSA and Qatar? Could it be that Washington wants to finally unload Kiev and its never ending need to be subsidized by Germany or Washington D.C.?

Posted by: Sun Tzu | Dec 16 2015 19:51 utc | 42

@Noirette #39

Just one pov from one angle, others can be just as valid.

Excellent final statement, true for us all I think. But that's how it works, trying to put the pieces together, seeing what fits. I have read in a few sources that Iran influence in Iraq is very strong. I think we have it from Lone Wolf also that essentially Iran has created and shaped the "resistance-against-US/Irael" forces in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, having done all this under crippling sanctions. Iran seems to me the true great power in the Middle East.

For the US part in all this, I know Penelope talks of a split in the US between rival directions. Ghassan Kadi wrote an article a few months back detailing the deeper shift in the ME, of seeing the US unable to broker stability in the region, and re-connecting with Russia to fill the vacuum, as the descendant of the USSR. In some of his articles I think he too alludes to a US desire to quit the ME in order to shift focus and resources to the pivot to Asia. All his material is worth reading, at his home website intibahwakeup.blogspot.com, but this is the one about the tectonic shift in the ME: From Lawrence Of Arabia To The Maverick Of Eurasia

Now Sun Tzu #36 suggests US wants to be part of the Eurasian boom - I read that to mean as a participant and not as a dominator, but I'm sure there's lots of nuance there.

I'd like to know more about this possible voluntary shift of the US. If it really is a deep tide of history that US truly wants out of ME and into Eurasia, then entire paradigms and treaties are going to be recycled. But many things would fit, and make sense.

Posted by: Grieved | Dec 16 2015 20:14 utc | 43

U.S. bankers may have wanted U.S. intervention in World War One in 1917 (they had invested too much in the Allied cause to allow the Allied defeat that seemed to be in the cards without intervention), but I don't think any of the bankers in the European powers wanted war in 1914. It was certainly opposed by the business community, including the bankers, in Britain. And I don't think people like the Warburgs and Ballin in Germany wanted it either.

Posted by: lysias | Dec 16 2015 20:34 utc | 44

Glad to hear you're back, b. Don't overdo it; get plenty of rest.

I find this quote from your story the strangest part of it:

"Calling Islamic extremism a disease, Saudi Arabia has announced the formation of a coalition of 34 predominately Muslim nations to fight terrorism.
"This announcement comes from the Islamic world's vigilance in fighting this disease so it can be a partner, as a group of countries, in the fight against this disease,"

So they are calling what they are still supporting "a disease"? Have they caught schizophrenia from the West, or just honed their duplicity?

And their PR releases have become like those of the Israelis-- pure fiction.

I wondered when KSA started their war against Yemen, w US help oin intel, targeting, imaging & mid-air fueling if the target wasn't Saudi Arabia itself, rather than Yeman-- to partition it up. Doesn't make any sense, but then what does anymore?

Posted by: Penelope | Dec 16 2015 20:42 utc | 45

I agree with Paveway's comments that the Saudi royal family and the Wahhabi cultists are tied together, and the fall of the House of Saud will lead to the unravelling of the Wahhabi clerical system that promotes their nihilistic ideology. I am not sure that I agree with the contention that legal claims would lockup any effort to reorganize control of the oil fields under Shia (and ultimately Iranian) control. When the day of reckoning comes for the Saudi royals, I would not be surprised if their "allies" in America and Europe throw the profligate princes under the bus and invalidate any legal claims that survivors of the purge attempted to pursue. The flow of oil is too important to modern civilization to come under question due to court battles. Once the new power structure in post-Saudi Arabia takes control of the oil fields, I expect the world community will move to endorse its legitimacy as a means of self preservation.

Another aspect to be considered about the future of Arabia is that Wahhabism is a detested as a deviation from Islam by the majority of Muslims worldwide. Along with exporting violence and terror to the Muslim world, Saudi control of Mecca and Medina has led to the destruction of nearly all historical sites important to Muslims that date back to the days of the Prophet. There are lot of mainstream Muslims seeking to settle scores with the Wahhabi heretics, and so the downfall of the Saudis would likely lead to a global Muslim effort to regain control of the holy sites from the Wahhabi clerics. I expect that everyone from the Yemenis and the Iranians, to the Egyptians, Jordanians and Pakistanis, to make an effort to seize back control of Mecca and Medina from the fanatics. The end result, in my view, will probably be the partition of Arabia into at least three zones -- the oil-rich east under Iranian control, the desert waste of Najd around Riyadh as a desolate Wahhabi enclave filled with angry young men, and the Hijaz region of Mecca and Medina falling under the protection of a coalition of Muslim countries like those listed above.

We are living in interesting times, to say the least.

Posted by: VictorK | Dec 16 2015 20:56 utc | 46

@42 Yes, economic collapse has me worried too. Perfect time for a distracting war.(It will be Russia's fault). Two other things are applicable here viz US: Don't listen to what they say, watch what they do. And the related: Never trust the Anglo-Saxons.

Posted by: Kraken | Dec 16 2015 21:15 utc | 47

45 Saudi royal family and the Wahhabi cultists are tied together

The British Royals worked with the Christian Cultists. There were power struggles. There was an ebb and flow, but they needed each other. Constantine likewise worked with the Christians.

American Government has become more and more reliant on Christianity to get housewives on board with carpet bombing Arab women and children.

Christianity (religious institutions) get payback in the form of zero taxation on income and vast real estate holdings.

Government and Religion have been a team since humans stood upright.

Posted by: fast freddy | Dec 16 2015 21:20 utc | 48

Oops, guess this shows how little early reporting is to be believed: BBC: San Bernardino attackers 'did not post about jihad on social media':

The San Bernardino attackers did not post support for jihad on open social media, contrary to previous reports, the FBI has said. Instead they expressed support for martyrdom using "private direct messages", said FBI boss James Comey.

Article goes on to say that what they were using was Facebook.

Posted by: lysias | Dec 16 2015 21:28 utc | 49

One personal note I can add on this rather dubious announcement of a Saudi coalition that appears to be fictional. I have done a lot of business in the Gulf States and this kind of false braggadocio appears to be part of the culture, at least among the ruling classes. One Qatari company I worked with had a habit of issuing false press releases claiming they were doing things they were not, and indeed did not have the ability to do.

When I confronted the people involved about their PR antics, the response was that it was all part of a game where they were hoping that an announcement of their (unrealistic) plans would scare off competitors and attract the right partners to actually implement their pipe dreams. It got so bad that they had announced their partnership with a major American businessman who in reality had already walked away from them in disgust due to their failure to honor his contract. This gentleman was outraged they were using his name in press releases in what was essentially a lie.

I tried to explain to my Gulf counterparts that this kind of shady behavior would burn bridges and damage their reputations. They simply laughed at me as if I were naive. I then pulled the trump card and said: "Prophet Muhammad was famed as an honest businessman. This kind of behavior is not halal" (ie -- is not in accordance with Islamic law). They turned bright red with anger at that. And I terminated my business dealings with them shortly thereafter.

I hope that story gives some insight into why the Saudis are playing this PR game so badly.

Posted by: VictorK | Dec 16 2015 21:46 utc | 50

Has no-one noted that the reactions of Pakistan, Malaysia, Lebanon and Indonesia have been to seek more information from the Saudis as to how they were dragged into this Grand Coalition without their consent?

Whereas if the US were to announce a similar coalition to "fight" terrorism, its satrapies in the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand would barely raise a murmur in protest.

Posted by: Jen | Dec 16 2015 21:51 utc | 51

Palestinian Authority also not confirming membership in Saudi Coalition: EILAT, Israel – Saudi Arabia’s newly announced “Islamic military alliance,” purportedly created fight terrorism, continues to unravel.:

On Tuesday, Breitbart Jerusalem reported it was difficult to find a single Palestinian Authority official willing to publically comment on Saudi Arabia’s Islamic anti-terror alliance.

“Palestine” is listed as one of 34 Muslim nations who signed up to the new Muslim anti-terror coalition led by Saudi Arabia, which itself has long faced accusations of supporting Islamic extremist ideology.

Nabil Abu Rudaineh, the spokesman for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, told Breitbart Jerusalem he had no comment on the new alliance.

Breitbart Jerusalem directly phoned PA Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malaki, who also said he had no comment in the issue.

Breitbart Jerusalem spoke to one of the most senior officers in the Preventive Security Force, the PA’s main security organization. That officer was not even aware of the PA joining the new Saudi-led coalition until receiving the call from Breitbart Jerusalem.

The Preventative official phoned Breitbart Jerusalem minutes after the initial call to report that his agency has not been given any specific instructions about engaging in anti-terror activities with the Saudi coalition.

The official spoke on condition that his name be withheld for fear of being seen as publically criticizing Saudi Arabia. “No one here knows anything about what it is,” the official added.

Following inquiries from news media outlets, WAFA, the official Palestinian news agency, released a statement from the PA Presidency welcoming the creation of the Saudi coalition. “Palestine will be part of this coalition after consultations with Saudi Arabia,” the statement added.

Posted by: lysias | Dec 16 2015 22:00 utc | 52

@ Noirette 39.....wild guess here, are we now in an undeclared tiff with the Saudis??

Saudis are tanking Canadian/USA oil production [Russia is not the only target], they don't want the long term effects of USA/Canada selling to Europe. Would explain the craziness of Turkey. Too many turf wars and agendas to keep straight. Saudis building a coalition?

And McCain/Graham foaming at the mouth.

Priceless.

Posted by: shadyl | Dec 16 2015 22:01 utc | 53

@43

The Balfour Declaration is what the bankers were after, in the name of zionism.

So the Warburg and the Ballin and the Rothschild betrayed Germany and got their congeners to jump on the
war wagon and the sinking of the Lusitania was a premeditated bait to entice the US to declare war on Germany.

Bankers are always pro war. War expenses generate loans. Loans generate interests. Both sides must be financed
ad libitum as this insures the greatest destruction. Destruction breeds reconstruction. Reconstruction requires tremendous
amounts of loans and these generate interests.

It doesn't matter who wins. The winners will pay with the losers sweat and tears and will insure that the losers pay their own dues.

For bankers, war is a win win situation.

Posted by: CarlD | Dec 16 2015 22:07 utc | 54

@53 Could not be stated better.

Posted by: Kraken | Dec 16 2015 22:17 utc | 55

When I read Saudi was going to fight its own terrorists, I fell onto the floor laughing since it's oh so sickly funny. That they just rattled off a list of Moslem related nations without bothering to ask it just as sickly funny.

If fighting terrorism is as important as politicos declare, then the Saudi regime and its Wahhabbi clerics would've been attacked and overthrown long ago. Same thing with rigid controls over all forms of support; jails throughout the planet ought to be teeming given the brash overtness just daring to be stopped.

Posted by: karlof1 | Dec 16 2015 22:28 utc | 56

@Lysias #40

Whatever benefits may arise from strategic partnership with Russia, Iran, Iraq and Syria against Daesh, the western financial system has a hegemonic interest in propping the KSA and the other Gulf states because they are key elements of the Petrodollar system. The Atlantic powers will never abandon them for that reason. Burning Saudi oil strengthens Atlantic financial hegemony. Burning Iranian or other independent oil weakens it. In that sense the Gulf states have the Atlantic powers by the cojones until some other Petrodollar-based entity can be derived to control the oil trade in that region.

@PavewayIV

What you say about the mutual dependence of Wahhabism and Saudi royalty makes sense from a rational standpoint, but your rank-and-file disaffected Wahhabi ready for Jihad after being defeated in Iraq, Syria, or Yemen might not see it that way. The clerics probably realize what they have to lose, but if Wahhabi factions start slinging around accusations of apostasy all bets are off. I'd be curious to know what western think-tankers see as possible futures without the "help" of Saudi royalty. Maybe another "coalition" based on the Petrodollar establishment to control Saudi oilfields while chaos engulfs the remainder of the Kingdom.

Posted by: Thirdeye | Dec 16 2015 23:19 utc | 57

Glenn Greenwald reveals the great efforts the US State Department is going through to get more people to join Daesh. It's one of all too many "You can't make this stuff up" things done by the Outlaw US Empire to further its quest, https://theintercept.com/2015/12/15/when-the-state-department-tries-to-choose-muslim-thought-leaders-to-win-hearts-and-minds/

Posted by: karlof1 | Dec 16 2015 23:25 utc | 58

@#53

The biggest banker promoting US entry into WWI was the very Gentile J.P. Morgan. Jewish bankers were less than enthusiastic about entry into WWI because they loathed the prospect of a US alliance with the Czar, who they hated. In the US, Jews were suspected of being pro-German. They were equated with the Kaiserjuden bankers who financed the German war effort. The machinations of Lord Balfour were designed to give them a carrot for joining the rest of the US financial establishment in the rush to war.

The Lusitania sinking was set up by the British Admiralty and they needed no help from Jews. Churchill was such a clever fellow.

The true identities of the manipulators who got the US into WWI are pretty damn obvious: Brits and Anglophile bankers like Morgan.

Posted by: Thirdeye | Dec 16 2015 23:37 utc | 59

About Saudi Arabia I think their end is coming soon. and I believe the oligarchy is the united state is tired with them. To me the war in Yemen was the most stupid move ever made yet the Saudi went with it and the united state supported them. There is no way the Planners in The us didn't know it was a stupid move yet they supported it.And I believe the reason for that was to weaken Saudi Arabia and to force them to accept the new order coming up.One thing we should never forget is that The united state are the backbone of the Saudi as they have a strong military presence in their country.The US could easily topple the Saudi royal family in a heartbeat.Almost Any move made by the Saudi is allowed by the US.On top of all that the US are certainly backing whatever opposition exists in Saudi Arabia,just in case the tides start turning off ;which is the case now.. Furthermore we must remember four essential thing:

-The breaking off of Saudi Arabia is already decided by Washington( through the redrawing of the entire middle east)
-Gas is now the new alternative to oil (because of the new environmental agenda set up by the western oligarchs)
-The Muslim brotherhood is clearly now(and in my opinion has always been) the favourite ally of the western government over Saudi Arabia wahhabism in its politic in the middle east. And last but not the least, The muslin brotherhood is more friendly to capitalism and western influence.
-In the Arab Spring, which was decided by the globalist planners in Washington ,Saudi Arabia and Bahrain were targeted too (the protesters were mostly Shia and women).
- The new alliance with Iran
So with all these it is understandable that The royal Saudis feel trapped and act foolishly .Their fate seems to have been sealed and they know it. Part of the oligarchy in the west is already ready to move on.

Posted by: lebretteurfredonnant | Dec 16 2015 23:40 utc | 60

Speaking of the position of Jewish bankers at the time of U.S. entry into World War One, I was amused to read in Jacques Attali's Les juifs that the Goldman and the Sachs then running Goldman Sachs supported opposite sides in the war, with the result that they did not speak to each other for years.

Posted by: lysias | Dec 16 2015 23:45 utc | 61

I have read that the reason the U.S. supported the Saudi attack on Yemen was that that was the price that had to be paid to get Saudi acquiescence to the Iran deal.

Posted by: lysias | Dec 16 2015 23:48 utc | 62

Welcome back b keep taking care of yourself.Raw honey and oranges will help you get a long way.

@Thirdeye
I agree with you .In the same way the main promoters of Zionism and the more prominent among them are not all Jews.Modern Zionism surprisingly started among "gentile".

Posted by: lebretteurfredonnant | Dec 16 2015 23:48 utc | 63

@ lysias @Thirdeye
Speaking of bankers it is very interesting to notice that the bankers at the origin of the federal reserve aside from Walburg were all gentiles.

Posted by: lebretteurfredonnant | Dec 16 2015 23:51 utc | 64

@PaveWay, ViktorK, lebrette

I see the US walking away from the Turks and their confrontation with Russia and invasion of Iraq and, soon, from the Saudis and 'their' Yemen fiasco - both countries will go up in flames, USrael will march in to 'stabilize' oil production and to 'safeguard' the oilfields.

The Arab ME will come to resemble Syriaq all over, with USrael producing the oil amidst the devastation and destruction that 'somehow' got out of hand.

Our understanding regarding Syria, that Syria [the Arab Middle East] is going to suffer from chronic instability for a very, very long period of time. We can’t see the end of this tragedy of civil war: 300,000 casualties; 10 million refugees, part of them in their country, part of them outside their country. A tragedy, but there is no way to conclude it.

Glad to see you're back b! Don't overdo it, though. You know we all rely on you.

Posted by: jfl | Dec 17 2015 1:23 utc | 65

in re 53 --

Tin-foil yarmulkes all around.

Let me see if I get this. A bunch of bankers started the Great War so after 3 years and millions of deaths, they could induce the British to allow Jewish emigration to Palestine? I dare say an addendum to the Protocols spelled it all out.

Probably the same section where it is explained how a sinking in 1915 caused the US to declare war in 1917. The Zimmermann telegram and the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare are usually thought explanatory of the declaration. Not that we needed much encouragement, our Gilded Age faux aristocrats having previously initiated our necro-filial affection for freshly rebranded House of Windsor.

Bankers no doubt had a hand in the political and economic climate that produced the war. Imperialism, someone once wrote, was the highest form of finance capital. The rush for markets, materials, and outlets for investment propelled late Victorian and early Edwardian colonialism.

This competition (e.g., the Agadir incident) added to existing geopolitical tensions. French revanchism, pan-Slavism, and the ongoing disassembly of the Ottoman Empire by France, England, Russia, and the Dual Monarchy were cause enough.

All of the major European states had sharp internal conflicts that war-time patriotism could paper over. Britain for example had faced the Curragh mutiny, France had been rocked by the Dreyfus affair, and autocracy was under attack in Russia.

Everywhere, but especially in Germany, the bourgeoisie feared the socialists, who vowed "not one man, not one penny" for imperialist war. The kaiser's minions were careful to maneuver the Russians into the first (partial) mobilization, so they could awe the Social Democrats with the threat of "autocracy."

And what sort of war was expected? Not a long war of industrial attrition, but a short, sharp, and overwhelming victory, such as Prussia had scored over France and Austria-Hungary. Men and boys on both sides flocked to the colors -- they wanted to be sure they got their share of glory before it was over.

Posted by: rufus magister | Dec 17 2015 1:50 utc | 66

It seems that, from the US' assignment of bans to its vassals, Australia is to China as Turkey was to Russia. Some folks just can't be ued enough. I guess they'll get 'extra-credit' - a hearty hand-shake and hip-hip, for your're a jolly good vassal - if they're the ones who actually start WWIII?

Posted by: jfl | Dec 17 2015 2:36 utc | 67

Have you ever hugged a Saudi royal? Of course not. Maybe that's why they're so angry.
Posted by: PavewayIV | Dec 16, 2015 1:49:02 PM | 35

http://nypost.com/2015/12/16/saudi-millionaire-beats-rape-charge-after-claiming-he-fell-into-teen/

From the little I heard about the social life of Saudis abroad, they do get a share of hugs, although things can get out of hand. And my data points are from life of an American non-elite college campus.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Dec 17 2015 2:44 utc | 68

Hope this has not been posted already: http://www.politico.eu/article/wahhabi-religious-nationalism-turns-ugly-mecca/
Comprehensive and surprisingly easy-to-read historical account. The question is how to go forward... In some years none of this will matter, as Saudis/Qataris will lose power stemming from the presence of oil (natural gas will remain important for some time yet). But the region will no longer have the same significance (even the Brits do not need their passage to India). What will happen then - Arabs fighting each other as before? Turks trying to expand? (By the way the same motivation as Poles are messing in Ukraina - in hopes of gaining some of the lost territory from Kiev) Tighten your seatbelts, it is going to be a bumpy ride!

Posted by: GoraDiva | Dec 17 2015 3:17 utc | 69

Iran, a country so feared...but, just a country who chose to self determine. Such a crime.

Posted by: MadMax2 | Dec 17 2015 3:24 utc | 70

Is it possible that this about face by USiAns is because Russia threatened to release inflammatory info on: 911, MH17, ISIL and Turkey's OIL trade with MI6/CIA/KSA/Mossad etc.?

Posted by: Sun Tzu | Dec 17 2015 4:29 utc | 71

@64 jfl: I agree that that the US will likely abandon both the Turks and the Saudis, but I don't see the US being able to successful come into Arabia and take control after the royals fall from power. Iran and Russia are now the dominant powers in the region and they will not permit US to have direct control of the oil fields in Shia-majority eastern Arabia. Also, American troops actually invading near Mecca and Medina will inflame the entire Islamic world and lead to blowback unlike any known in history.

I can imagine both the Americans and the Iranian-Russian alliance attempting a proxy war by pushing various local pretenders for control of the Arabian peninsula. But with Shia domination of the oil rich areas, I think the Americans will be at a severe disadvantage to put in a new puppet once the Saud family is out of the picture.

The most likely final outcome in my view remains a Shia-controlled eastern Arabia, a Wahhabi rump state around Riyadh, and a mainstream Sunni takeover of Mecca and Medina, most likely led by the Egyptians who are geographically closest to the Hijaz and can dispatch troops across the Red Sea to secure the holy cities.

And I think once the Saudis fall and Turkey potentially devolves into civil war, Israel's days are numbered. If the Zionists are smart, they will take the peaceful South Africa solution and accept a bi-national state with a Palestinian majority. If they are stupid and intransigent (and I believe they are), then Israel will face an ugly end akin to the collapse of the French colonial occupation of Algeria, with a mass exodus of Jewish refugees from a collapsing state.

Posted by: VictorK | Dec 17 2015 4:54 utc | 72

@ Sun Tzu, I think McCain/Graham/Hillary's State minions have been fighting their private little war, add Carter, too. BUT, he just got outed for private emails. So, I think Kerry might be taking orders from Obama now...but what do I know.

Posted by: shadyl | Dec 17 2015 4:56 utc | 73

Thanks shadyl. I still find it shocking that a hyper power like USA does a U turn on the Assad must go mantra, tells Turkey to back off and its chief diplomat takes a high profile stroll through Moscow to buy matryoshka doll souvenirs. This stinks! Was it nuclear blackmail? Russia just moved troops to the border with Armenia and Turkey. But this is something else! What went down?

Posted by: Sun Tzu | Dec 17 2015 5:15 utc | 74

Didn't Russia just dump about 10 billion in US$ holdings? I can't find the link.

Posted by: Sun Tzu | Dec 17 2015 5:21 utc | 75

Noirette and Lysias: you are having your optimistic week or what?
Yemen is all about securing Bab al Mandeb, i.e. what we'll see next is the US and others setting up bases on the small islands south of the Red Sea. How come otherwise don't we hear much condemnation of what is going on in Erythrea (trying to copy North Korea) when the number of people who die in the Mediterranean sea trying to cross to Europe and coming from this country is next only to the Syrians ? see the table here for the nationalities of ppl who arrived between January and April 2015
http://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2015/04/20/en-2015-un-migrant-meurt-toutes-les-deux-heures-en-moyenne-en-mediterranee_4619379_4355770.html

Posted by: Mina | Dec 17 2015 5:56 utc | 76

@ Sun Tzu | 74, was Obama in a Hillary bubble? Something's changed. Maybe dirty laundry, and dumping dollars?

Posted by: shadyl | Dec 17 2015 6:14 utc | 77

@42 sun tzu... a quote that i never get tired of : "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

i doubt economic collapse for the us$ dominance any time soon, but anything is possible..

Posted by: james | Dec 17 2015 6:43 utc | 78

Questioned for an event that occured when he was 3 years old
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/173697/World/Region/Lebanon-refuses-Syrias-request-to-return-Gaddafis-.aspx

Posted by: Mina | Dec 17 2015 7:16 utc | 79

@jfl#64

If KSA were to descend into chaos with Jihadis USrael would be stupid to march in. They really, really don't need to be occupying the land that contains the Holy sites of Mecca and Medina. Their dilemma would be solved if KSA's oil producing regions were separated from the Holy sites, maybe by sponsoring expansion of UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait. Of course, Qatar is a sponsor of Jihadis, so there would still be some unfinished business.

@lebretteurfredonnant

Not only were many of the original Zionists Gentiles, they were also antisemitic. They supported the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine and thought that all Jews should move there. And supporting Zionism later became a salve for the consciences of those who trapped Jews in Europe by not allowing them to immigrate to their own countries.

Posted by: Thirdeye | Dec 17 2015 7:37 utc | 80

re 28 Pave

In my limited understanding of it, any 'cleansing' of Saudi Wahhabism is impossible. It is not independent of the House of Saud. They have a symbiotic relationship and one would wither and die without the other. If the House of Saud falls, then present-day Wahhabism will die with it as well.

It is true that they are closely intertwined. But I don't think that Wahhabism would wither away and die if the dynasty did. One point is that there are Wahhabis in other countries such as Qatar, and they would not disappear. The second is that Wahhabism is only a variant of conservative Salafism, descended from Ibn Taimiyya in the 14th century. There are lots of other variants - indeed Nusra and ISIS are demonstrations - and they wouldn't necessarily die if the Saudi dynasty did.

What might die is the Saudi financing of mosques and imams all round the world, and thus the stimulus to the creation of jihadis.

Posted by: Laguerre | Dec 17 2015 8:12 utc | 81

I wonder if you remember just how arrogantly public the US was in announcing its 2006 plan for a New Middle East?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-for-redrawing-the-middle-east-the-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882

And they complain about Russia's redrawing Crimea's border with Crimea's permission!

US of Arrogance.

Posted by: Penelope | Dec 17 2015 8:25 utc | 82

Posted by: Sun Tzu | Dec 17, 2015 12:15:43 AM | 73

My bet would be on Afghanistan.

Russia: ISIS smuggles heroin through Turkey

Russia considers going to war against ISIS in Afghanistan

NATO logistics in the Afghan war

From their inception, the Pakistani supply routes proved unreliable and vulnerable to theft and disruption by the Taliban.[9]

In a single incident in 2008, 42 oil tankers were destroyed,[9] and later that same year 300 militants attacked a facility in Peshawar run by Port World Logistics and set fire to 96 supply trucks and six containers.[10]

Posted by: somebody | Dec 17 2015 8:32 utc | 83

@79 3rdi

I agree on the 'undesirability' of USrael occupying the Islamic Sacred State ... they've had that figured out themselves, since 2002, at least.

Posted by: jfl | Dec 17 2015 12:07 utc | 84

@79
(a) -- Those sacred sites belong by tradition to the children of Hagar the Egyptian wife (#2) of Ibrahim/Abraham. The future site care would then fall naturally to the main center of Egypt today. There may also be some argument that the actual descendants of the Prophet of Islam (through his daughters) link with Persia/Iran. As for the oil -- much of it is under Shia control and that would tend to flow towards Tehran's sphere of influence.

(b) -- Let's not forget the lack of interest in taking Jewish refugees after WW2 etc. It is entirely possible that 'Western' support for the apartheid state of Israel on Palestinian lands is based on a long-term view there may be some utility in being able to export and 'dump' said peoples there if/when the time of necessity comes. It may not be an altruistic strategy at all.

Posted by: xxx | Dec 17 2015 12:14 utc | 85

@71 ViktorK

Your scenario sounds convincing. I'm not discounting NATO ensuring the 'stability' of the oilfields, though, and a 'temporary' occupation. I think that's why France, Britain, and Germany scrambled to join the US' coalition right after Friday the 13th. They wanted to be able to claim a piece of the action, when KSA goes down for the count.

Posted by: jfl | Dec 17 2015 12:16 utc | 86

@79

Some people love to rewrite history.

Hertzl. Have you heard about Benjamin Hertzl? referred to as the Father of ZIONISM. A Jew. So Zionism is not
a Gentile invention.

And I will refer you to Benjamin Freedman, a Jew that participated in those shady dealings whose testimony can
be found here:
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

Posted by: CarlD | Dec 17 2015 16:43 utc | 87

@ 76 shadyl Something has definitely changed and the ziocons aren't too happy about it. The question is, what changed? We share some hypothesis but here is another one.

Before Russia went into Syria and tested so many new weapons systems the belief in the Beltway was that USA could cripple Russia and prevent retaliation. This was due to aggressive PR from the MIC and the deployment of the missile shield in the European theater on both land and surface vessel platforms. However, after Russia launched Kalibr cruise missiles from the Caspian and from submarines in the mediterranean the calculus changed. These missiles fly under the radar and can target all these missile shield installations in Eastern Europe. Likewise, the leak that Russia has a "Kraken" a massive nuclear torpedo that can cause both a huge radioactive fall out and a massive tsunami afflicting coastal areas helped cooler heads prevail to push the ziocons out of the driving seat.

@ 77 james Yes, the MIC profits from wars but the Generals need to see they have the upper hand otherwise they would rebel against their paymasters. I think the Generals gamed this thing out and vetoed the ziocons approach at least for now until there is a clear victory possibility.

Posted by: Sun Tzu | Dec 17 2015 17:01 utc | 88

Laguerre@80 - That makes sense. There will still be conservative Salafists of some type and some will still follow Wahhabism - they just won't be able to afford Rita Katz videos or British SAS boots for their jihadis any more.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Dec 17 2015 17:09 utc | 89

@86 I suggest the S-400 system in Syria may be a factor. It's the antidote to no fly zones. It seems to have stopped Erdogan taking potshots and possibly Israel too.

Posted by: dh | Dec 17 2015 17:11 utc | 90

@86 sun tzu and @88 dh.. it seems russias weaponry/military equipment is a big factor here...

sun tzu - i really don't know how the generals fit into this equation but that makes sense too..

Posted by: james | Dec 17 2015 17:23 utc | 91

@88 dh and @89 james The Eastward expansion of NATO is seeking to reduce the buffer zone between NATO and Russia. This greater proximity to the target launch sites is advantageous for the performance of the BMD shield. But Russia has shown a capability to neutralize the European based BMDs with the surface and submarine launches of the kalibr cruise missiles and their Iskanders deployed in Russian Baltics enclave and possibly Crimea. Then the USA's Prompt Global Strike with use of hypersonic vehicles was created. However, Russia responded asymmetrically by reactivating mobile rail car strategic missiles and announcing that its new S-500 SAM system will have anti-hypersonic missiles. One thing is still uncertain, the deployment of and defense against tungsten rods on satellites that can rain down on the target.

Posted by: Sun Tzu | Dec 17 2015 17:46 utc | 92

@90 Yeah well I'm not really into military details. What I see is a breakdown in diplomacy. Lavrov tried hard but NATO leaders seem to have a hearing problem. It's the weapons that get the attention.

Posted by: dh | Dec 17 2015 17:52 utc | 93

@CarlD #85

Of course I've heard of Herzl. Just about everybody has. What we don't hear about is the cynical embrace of Zionism by antisemitics. They gained cover for their desires to marginalize Jews within their own societies.

Yes, I've heard of Ben Freedman and listened to his talk. He spins a tidy narrative about an instantaneous reversal of America's stance towards entering WWI, engineered by Lord Balfour and influential American Jews. That narrative is bullshit. The American slide towards WWI was well underway before Lord Balfour's deal with the Zionists. It was driven by gentile financiers who wanted to protect their investments in Britain's war effort and some Anglophiles who were influential in Woodrow Wilson's circle. Wilson was saying one thing to the American public and doing another behind the scenes. Balfour's machinations had the support of American warmongers who felt that Jews needed a prod to get with the program and swallow their distaste for war allied with the Czar.

Freedman's Exhibit A, the James Malcom account, doesn't really support his narrative of Jewish master manipulators. It was brave of Freedman to distribute it when in fact it shows that Jews were the targets of manipulation. Zionism was a fringe tendency among American Jews, who tended towards assimilationism until they were manipulated into supporting Zionism and war in the interest of being "good Jews."

Posted by: Thirdeye | Dec 17 2015 18:26 utc | 94

Posted by: Sun Tzu | Dec 17, 2015 12:46:46 PM | 90

My bet is on Afghanistan. From Wikipedia NATO logistics in the Afghan war

There are several different routes included in the Northern Distribution Network. The most commonly used route, though also one of the longest, starts at the port of Riga, Latvia on the Baltic Sea, and continues for 3,212 miles (5,169 km) by train southwards through Russia, using railroads built by Russia in the 1980s for the Soviet war in Afghanistan.[2]

This here is ex-Reagon, ex-Bush Colonel Wilkerson expecting the war in Afghanistan lasting for the next 50 years or so.

Posted by: somebody | Dec 17 2015 18:27 utc | 95

good pic
http://angryarab.blogspot.de/2015/12/so-how-is-saudi-invasion-of-yemen-going.html

Posted by: Mina | Dec 17 2015 18:41 utc | 96

@xxx #83

If the oil fields fall under the Shia side in a collapsed Saudi state, keeping them under the Petrodollar system looks like a long shot. Somebody's going to have to make one hell of a deal.

@Sun Tzu #86
The nuclear torpedo was a weapon concept from the early nuclear era. There is no evidence that one actually exists.

Posted by: Thirdeye | Dec 17 2015 18:57 utc | 97

Sun Tzu at 42.

Could it be that Europeans started to tell Washington through back channels that the likes of Le Pen are set to win the elections if you keep pushing us too hard to be friends with ISIL sponsors Turkey, KSA and Qatar?

Maybe .. unlikely? Idk. The elections in F don’t matter.

Could it be that Washington wants to finally unload Kiev and its never ending need to be subsidized by Germany or Washington ..

Germany (EU boss) and the US ‘annexed’ Ukraine, together, the US to provoke, challenge, Russia, up NATO encirclement; alternatively, create a split-off zone (frozen conflict, simmering hybrid war, strife, etc.) Germany for trade, agri, cheap labor, EU power, expansion, and subservience to the US …

US + EU have thrown in the towel on Ukr., are now very red-faced or egg faced? Yet can’t admit failure of previous actions, can’t concede a ‘win’ for Russia, as the Donbass will in time join Russia. Note the silence about Crimea, now accepted as part of Russia, besides empty statements.

Follows, insistence on ‘federalisation’ of Ukr., (Minsk protocol) to keep the country ‘unitary’ — controlling mini-regions in cahoots with oligarchs, local war lords, etc. (ex. Kosovo) is cumbersome, a drag: one wants some strong instituted top > down power that keeps ‘the peace.’

again just one angle..

mina at 75 i try to be optimistic is heartfelt heh :)

Posted by: Noirette | Dec 17 2015 19:19 utc | 98

@CarlD #85

I concur with Thirdeye

Before talking of rewriting history you should check people like Anthony Ashley Cooper, lord Shaftesbury with his article about thew restoration of the Jews in Israel in the colonial time written in 1841.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Memorandum_to_Protestant_Monarchs_of_Europe_for_the_restoration_of_the_Jews_to_Palestine%2C_Colonial_Times_1841.jpg
Or Check William Eugene Blackstone who made the Blackstone memorial in 1891 in support of the return of the Jews to Palestine.Blackstone was so influential and prominent for the Zionist cause that Nathan Strauss a rich Jewish merchant himself acknowledged him as the true father of Zionism.In letter Strauss said to Blackstone "Mr. Brandeis is perfectly infatuated with the work that you have done along the lines of Zionism. It would have done your heart good to have heard him assert what a valuable contribution to the cause your document is. In fact he agrees with me that you are the Father of Zionism, as your work antedates Herzl"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone_Memorial#cite_note-3

And this are only two examples of Zionists and Zionism that predate Theodore Herzl or any other Jewish Zionist and Zionism . I am not denying the fact that there is Jewish Zionism but I am denying the idea that it is specifically and primarily Jewish.It is not for many obvious reasons. In fact,Zionism is first and foremost a mystic which is shared by different kind of people of all background for whom the Jewish people is just a tool to realize their twisted vision of the world.You just have to see christian Zionist like John Hagee with their mega church to understand this.They are the one making millions of dollars of donation every year to support Israel.And trust me they are not Jewish.

Posted by: lebretteurfredonnant | Dec 17 2015 19:49 utc | 99

@SunTzu The real story behind the unprecedented colossal geopolitical shift we've been observing over the last 5 years has a lot to do with the exotic energy production technology that Iran has developed.

It means end to the current oily choke-hold of the atlantist-kabbalist "western" oligarchy on the rest of the world and the death of their dreams of full spectrum dominance.

Immediate introduction of this technology now would mean total chaos though, millions of angry, unemployed, desperate people. Neither Russia, nor Iran, nor China want that, they support gradual transition over many years.

Certain elements of the US/Western/ME power structure understand this and came to the agreement with those countries of the "Resistance Axis" some years ago about participation in that transition.

Of course the most brutal, implicated, guilty, anti-human, cruel people from the Western oligarchy, that cannot count on forgiveness, will not be included and will be held responsible. It's them who have been undermining every official agreement between Obama and Putin and advocate desperately for more war, even total, as their last recourse to maintain the status quo. They sponsor ISIL, disappearing/shooting down of airplanes, bloody regime changes like in Ukraine, false flag operation like in Paris, 9/11 earlier.

Look up reports about Iranian plasma scientists visiting US a few years ago, also recent developments in Germany.

The application of this exotic tech made also possible recently a French submarine with a device borrowed from Russians/Iranians to approach undetected and "take out" most of the US strike group during an exercise.

That's why Israel and its handlers are so desperate to destroy Iranian "nuclear" program, i.e. steal the technology and block it for ever.

The team Obama-Putin will win, but the question is at what price in collateral damage? (That depends on how any people are "awake and aware")

Posted by: ProPeace | Dec 17 2015 20:28 utc | 100