Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
July 05, 2021

Growing Saudi Vs. Emirates Conflict May Open The Door For Moscow

In 2015 the Saudi cown prince Mohammad bin Salman was best friend with the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, Mohammed bin Zayed. Together they decided to attack the Houthi government in Yemen which had ousted the former regime under the former President Hadi. The war on Yemen has been waged since.

But by now the interests of the Saudis and the UAE have diverged on several issues. Over the last days the between them conflict exposed itself on three important fronts.

Soon after the start of the intervention in Yemen the interests of the Saudis and United Emirates split. While Saudis forces occupy western and some southern parts of Yemen in the name of former President Hadi and his Islah party, the UAE took the side of the Southern Yemen Transition Council (STC) which wants to split from a united Yemen.

Two days ago the Saudis supported side decided to replace a police chief in the southern town of Lawdar in Abyan province in south Yemen with one of their man, an allegedly a former(?) al-Qaida member. The STC wanted a keep the old police chief. The Saudi supported forces attacked the town and caused several casualties.


The UAE responded by sending reinforcements to the STC which threatened to escalate the issue.

Yesterday one or more missiles hit a military brigade headquarter of the Saudi supported forces in the city of Marbat, some 50 miles east of Lawdar. There were reports that planes and drones had been seen in the area and that the attack had come from UAE airplanes. At least five militia soldiers were killed in the attack.


However the 'official' reports blamed the attack on Houthi forces:

(Reuters) - Yemen's Houthi movement on Sunday carried out a rare missile strike on a southern region that has seen renewed infighting between forces allied to a military coalition led by Saudi Arabia, three government sources said.

The attack on a military base in Abyan, which two of the sources said killed at least two soldiers and injured over 20, comes as the recognised government and a separatist group both mass fighters in the area while Riyadh moves to ease tensions.

The Southern Transitional Council (STC) has been vying with the Saudi-backed government for control of the south. The Houthis, who ousted the government from the Yemeni capital, Sanaa, in late 2014, largely hold the north.

There was no immediate comment from the Houthis, who are trying to seize the government's last northern stronghold in gas-rich Marib while also keeping up cross-border attacks on Saudi cities.

The claim of a Houthi attack makes little sense. There haven't been any significant Houthi operations in the south for several months. The missile attack was definitely part of the infighting between the proxy forces of the 'coalition partners' Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Neither side though seems interested in making that publicly known. There are more important issues between them that demand full attention.

On Friday the oil ministers of the OPEC oil producer cartel and Russia negotiated about new limits to oil production. Everyone but the UAE accepted plans to raise the current production limits but to also keep them at that level for a longer time:

The United Arab Emirates on Sunday pushed back against a plan by the OPEC oil cartel and allied producing countries to extend the global pact to cut oil production beyond April 2022, a rare statement revealing the country’s frustration with the group.

The Emirati Ministry of Energy called the proposal to extend the agreement for the entirety of 2022 without raising its production quota “unfair to the UAE,” according to state-run WAM news agency.

One of the group’s largest oil producers, the UAE is seeking to increase its output — setting up a contest with ally and OPEC heavyweight Saudi Arabia, which has led a push to keep a tight lid on production.

The combined OPEC Plus grouping of members led by Saudi Arabia and non-members, chief among them Russia, failed to reach an agreement Friday on oil output. Negotiations over the dispute are set to resume Monday.

The additional negotiations planned for today have been canceled.

The UAE argues that it has increased its maximal production capacity and thus deserves a higher share of the total output. Since the new OPEC+ limits were introduced in the spring of 2020 everyone had held back on increasing their produiction capacity. The UAE jumped out of that line, invested in more capacity and now demands a greater share. The other OPEC+ member reasonably reject such trickery:

Saudi Arabia's energy minister pushed back on Sunday against opposition by fellow Gulf producer the United Arab Emirates to a proposed OPEC+ deal and called for "compromise and rationality" to secure agreement when the group reconvenes on Monday.

It was a rare public spat between allies whose national interests have increasingly diverged, spilling over into OPEC+ policy setting at a time consumers want more crude to aid a global recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.
[The UAE] said baseline production references - the level from which any cuts are calculated - should be reviewed for any extension.
OPEC+ sources said the UAE contended its baseline was originally set too low, but was ready to tolerate if the deal ended in April 2022. The UAE has ambitious production plans and has invested billions of dollars to boost capacity.

Today Saudi Arabia escalated the conflict into a new field:

Saudi Arabia has amended its rules on imports from other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries to exclude goods made in free zones or using Israeli input from preferential tariff concessions – in a challenge to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as the region’s trade and business hub.

Despite being close allies, Saudi Arabia and the neighbouring UAE are competing to attract investors and businesses. Their national interests have also increasingly diverged, such as in their relations with Israel and Turkey.
Saudi Arabia will henceforth exclude from the GCC tariff agreement goods made by companies with a workforce made up of less than 25 percent of local people and industrial products with less than 40 percent of added value after their transformation process.

The ministerial decree published on the Saudi official gazette Umm al-Qura said all goods made in free zones in the region will not be considered locally made.

Free zones, a major driver of the UAE’s economy, are areas in which foreign companies can operate under light regulation, and where foreign investors are allowed to take 100 percent ownership in companies.

Decisions in Saudi Arabia as well as in the UAE are made by the respective man at the top. The deadly infighting in Yemen, the OPEC+ scuffle and the new import rules in Saudi Arabia can therefore not been seen as separate issues.

MbS of Saudi Arabia and MbZ of the UAE are now fighting each other in several domains. Neither man is willing to give grounds. We can therefore expect further escalations which, given the aggressiveness of both man, could even lead to an armed conflict.

But the Saudi side, despite being the larger country, is unlikely to win a fight. The Biden administration has already been cool towards Saudi Arabia and the Israel lobby will push the U.S. to take the side of the UAE. Militarily the Saudis have lost in Yemen against barefooted Houthi fighters while the UAE has over the years built a quite disciplined and well trained force led by 'western' mercenary commanders. The Saudis also lack the air defenses they would need in the case of a conflict.

Two weeks ago the U.S. pulled back its air umbrella from Saudi Arabia where it had covered Saudi oil assets against Houthi missile attacks:

The Pentagon is pulling approximately eight Patriot antimissile batteries from countries including Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, according to officials. Another antimissile system known as a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or Thaad system, is being withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, and jet fighter squadrons assigned to the region are being reduced, those officials said.
The latest reductions, which haven't been previously reported, began earlier this month, following a June 2 call in which Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin informed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of the changes, officials said. Most of the military hardware being removed is coming from Saudi Arabia, officials said.

Without a decent air cover a Saudi military conflict with its neighbor UAE is not feasible. Let down by the U.S. Mohammad bin Salman needs new allies on the global and regional stage.

A large Saudi purchase of Russian air defense systems of all shapes and types could help it to fill the holes the U.S. pull back has opened up. It would also give Moscow a sound reason to care for Saudi Arabia's further fate. The idea is not new. It was last discussed in March when the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met Muhammad bin Salman in Riyadh. The rising conflict with the UAE may well give it new impetus.

Posted by b on July 5, 2021 at 17:01 UTC | Permalink


I can't see how Russia would be interested. AA systems manned by Saudies are doomed to fail and create bad publicity. Unless I miss something use of mercenaries is doubtful for such complicated systems.

Posted by: Igor | Jul 5 2021 17:20 utc | 1

This started with a Saudi attack, in support of a high handed Saudi political move. "The Saudi supported forces attacked the town and caused several casualties."

Of course those attacked then struck back.

The Saudis don't need new missiles are allies. They need to stop attacking the allies they've got now.

Posted by: Mark Thomason | Jul 5 2021 17:38 utc | 2

Some rambling questions...

If Oceania didn’t already own/support MBS and KSA, wouldn’t Oceania have used his horrible image as an opportunity to attack and/or replace him long ago?

In the event Eurasia plays white knight to rescue a falling MBS, wouldn’t MBS “suddenly” become a propaganda liability? Would Oceania finally release more dirt on MBS or KSA (the “redacted 28 pages”, the murder of the Wapo propagandist, whatever) and wouldn’t that drive the point home?

So, if Eastasia were to help KSA, wouldn’t they ask MBS to step aside? On top of that, like Igor said, who would man the AA batteries? KSA is a shell. Is KSA still viable as a nominally independent nation? Is it still useful to Oceania, Eurasia or Eastasia? I wonder.

Maybe a collapse of KSA will justify explicit Oceania occupation, bankrupt KSA gov, and force it to mortgage its oil futures. Who would stop that and how? Oceania FTW!

Another benefit for Oceania: fingers more directly on the oil spigots that Eastasia needs.

Posted by: oglalla | Jul 5 2021 17:53 utc | 3

The UAE has been granting "second" passports to Israelis. (probably about 5'000) which allows them to keep their original ones as well. (Note that Cheney and others of similar "standards as Rumsfeld", are already installed)

These may allow unfettered travel across all the Gulf States, which I can see becoming a problem for those Emirates and countries that have NOT made agreements with Israel.


The UAE has taken over 2 small strategically placed islands in the Bab-el Mandab strait, building an airport on one of them (Perim), and are also issuing their own Id-passsports to Yemenis who inhabit Soccotra (It is a Yemeni island).

So it is clear they are thinking of doing the same trick of "occupying" someone else's territory, as the US does in Syria or Israel does in Palestine.

They probably think they are now going to stay indefinitely.

Posted by: Stonebird | Jul 5 2021 18:09 utc | 4

The houthis were blamed for an attack on Aden airport at the end of last year. Bellingcat even did an investigation. They pointed to social media footage of rudimentary rocket launches in areas too distant to be within the range of the devices, as implicating the houthis. The UN however accepted the Bellingcat findings in their investigation. The attack more likely came from nearby and one of the numerous factions to the southern conflict that couldn't accept the Rihyad accord.

Posted by: diagonal | Jul 5 2021 18:21 utc | 5

My dictum for war in the region is "taking oil off the market is just as important as placing oil on the market". Chaos in Saudi would lead to a $300 a barrel price. Great for the CO2 crowd and great for certain producers.

Have the Wests bean counters got their investment out of Saudi land or do they figure to make a killing on $300 a barrel oil? Just guessing at this point.

Posted by: circumspect | Jul 5 2021 18:25 utc | 6

What are Russian interests in this opportunity?
A stable OPEC+ oil industry.
Weapons sales.
Splitting off KSA from US hegemony.
Accessing KSA wealth for investments in Russia.
Nulling the KSA-AQ-ISIS threats in Syria,Caucasus region and Central Asia.

It all is good for Russia, bad for US.

Russia also would gain more Intel on local dynamics in ME.

Posted by: Red Ryder | Jul 5 2021 18:29 utc | 7

thanks b... fascinating developments and i agree with your conclusion... the clown prince - mbs and the other dictator - zayid - mbz are meant for one another... a couple of dictators cut from the same cloth, although i believe uae is much richer... both of them have had designs on yemen for some time, although uae is more successful staying off the radar..

the gear the usa is moving out of ksa was shown to be ineffective when the houthis attacked ksa's oil infrastructure... send back the useless gear... if they could get russias, it would be different... not sure how easy that is going to be... interesting developments... as usual israel - usa will be playing a deceitful and deceptive game... i think mbz is more in line with that approach.. the clown prince doesn't have the same kind of cunning... will be interesting to watch..

Posted by: james | Jul 5 2021 18:31 utc | 8

It would take time, though.

Turkey started to buy the S-400 after the blatant coup attempt by the USA against Erdogan. That was 2016. We're in the middle of 2021 and the S-400 is far from operational in Turkey, if I'm not mistaken.

So, if the Saud family is thinking about buying the S-400 (or even the S-500, for that matter), they're doing so thinking in the long-term, not the short-term.

Posted by: vk | Jul 5 2021 18:54 utc | 9

@ circumspect 6

$300 oil would sell a lot of EV’s.

Arguably, it would benefit oligarchs in Oceania (revive fracking + accelerate EV production) and Eurasia (conventional oil).

Eastasia would suffer inflation but would revive coal and accelerate EV production. Also, the relative dearth of domestic oil supply that hampers them has also forced them to develop a prosperous economy with very low oil use per capita. Still, I suspect they either “gain least” or lose most” in a “$300 oil” scenario.

Posted by: oglalla | Jul 5 2021 19:28 utc | 10

I have written a comprehensive chronology for the CyberPolygon unveiling up until now, side by side with the COVID-19 timeline, and the similarities are striking.

What is foreshadowed is not good, and I would strongly suggest that everyone prepare for an extended grid failure. For the full timeline with all the sources go here:

Please share this with everyone, time is not on our side.

June 2009: In the midst of the swine flu breakout the World Health Organization defangs their working definition of 'pandemic' by removing the requirement of "enormous numbers of deaths and illnesses".

Like magic, the WHO can now declare pandemics far more easily triggering billion dollar contracts with pharmaceutical companies--and it does so... with the already in-progress swine-flu outbreak.

April 2015: In a Ted Talk Bill Gates predicts, "If anything kills over 10 million people in the next few decades, it’s most likely to be a highly infectious virus rather than a war".

January 2017: Dr. Fauci promises, "there is no question that there will be a challenge for the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases ... there will be a surprise outbreak"

Mid 2019: Dr. Fauci directs a total of $7.4 million in funding from NIAID to a lab in Wuhan China with some of the funds set aside to study 'gain of function research' for corona-viruses--making them far more infectious and deadly to human beings.

August 2019: Kary Mullis, inventor of the PCR test used to detect COVID-19 dies of pneumonia.

Kary, who was openly critical of Dr. Fauci - calling him a fraud who had no problem lying to the American people and who, “doesn't know anything about anything” - said many times that his PCR test could not be used to diagnose an illness, and that with a high enough cycle threshold you could find just about anything.

Regardless, his PCR test was the primary test used to diagnose C-19, with the New York times later admitting that the non-test likely had a false positive rate in the neighborhood of 90%. This test was used to measure cases and cases were used to justify the lockdowns which severely wounded the world economy.

October 2019: The WEF and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation host a pandemic simulation called 'Event 201' with dozens of corporate, political, and media participants scripting and acting out their response in the event a real one occurred.

November 2019: Less than 2 months later in Wuhan China, C-19 enters the world stage and spreads rapidly across the globe leaving extreme economic havoc in its wake.

June 2020: Stereotypical Bond villain and leader of the WEF, Klaus Schwab releases his book, ‘COVID-19: The Great Reset’, a communistic creed describing a future where our biology will be merged with computers and AI. A dystopian scenario for the future outlined on their website and youtube channel is, “ by 2030 you will own nothing, have no privacy, and you will be happy.”

July 2020: Dr. Fauci admits that with a PCR test cycle threshold higher than 35, the COVID-19 test results are meaningless. This despite the fact that since the beginning of the pandemic, labs everywhere have run their PCR cycle thresholds in the 36 to 50 range and continued to do so even after Fauci's July comments. This caused false-positive case counts to continue to explode across the world facilitating more stringent lock-downs.

November 2020: Klaus Schwab releases a pair of videos of himself and a colleague warning that a global cyber pandemic is inevitable and that when it arrives it will shut down power grids across the world causing havoc that will far exceed the havoc already caused by the C-19 pandemic.

December 2020: Solar Winds - a giant cyber security firm whose security suite is installed on many of the major government and corporate networks across the first world - announces a catastrophic security breach in which hackers injected a back door into Solar Wind's codebase, which was then distributed to all of their clients during the next update cycle--granting the hackers access to all of those systems. Rootkits were likely then deployed granting full undetectable control. This event now gives cover for the hacking of the world’s power grids due to the fact that those systems have been compromised by "bad actors".

February 2021: an extremely rare winter storm freezes Texas to near zero causing an extremely rare power grid failure across the state.

March 2021: the EverGiven - a ship the size of four city blocks - charts a cock and balls GPS course across the sea before securely lodging itself sideways in the Suez canal thereby clogging up the world’s most important shipping lane for six days.

Posted by: GrievingGod | Jul 5 2021 19:39 utc | 11

I have thought that the Saudis looked ripe for the picking for some time.

And everybody needs cash.

Modi seems to be reconsidering his strategic priorities too.

And Russia is making a move in Myanmar.

Interesting times.

Posted by: Bemildred | Jul 5 2021 20:28 utc | 12

The claim that the PCR test has 90% false positive for COVID is nonsense. The total positive rate can never fall below the false positive rate, yet we know that for example in the late summer of last year, here in Scotland we were getting positivity rates from the tests as low as 1%. The infection is regarded as under control if positivity can be lowered to 5%, which it has been at several stages in the UK.

Posted by: Paul Cockshott | Jul 5 2021 20:50 utc | 13

Paul, you can read about 90% false positive rate at the New York Times here:

Posted by: GrievingGod | Jul 5 2021 21:20 utc | 14

@13 Thank you for that fascinating piece of information. I'm sure it fits into the Saudi/Emirates feud somewhere.

Posted by: dh | Jul 5 2021 21:22 utc | 15

Typo alert:

In 2015 the Saudi cown prince Mohammad bin Salman was best friend with the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, Mohammed bin Zayed.

I hope that the missing letter was intended to be an "L"...

Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Jul 5 2021 21:27 utc | 16

Posted by: diagonal | Jul 5 2021 18:21 utc | 5

Well, of course the UN accepted NATO cutout Bellingcrap's findings. They probably paid for them.

Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Jul 5 2021 21:31 utc | 17

Sure is taking a long time for the Saudis to disengage with Yemen mirroring Outlaw US Empire behavior in Afghanistan. The UAE hasn't suffered as much from its involvement but that might soon change. The regional dynamic is very much in flux and thus bears close watching. UAE's behavior sends a message that it must increase its cash flow. I very much doubt Russia will sell advanced AD systems to the Saudis since Russians will need to man those systems, and Russia doesn't need cash that badly.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jul 5 2021 22:45 utc | 18

That's a provocative post b. Thank you.

I doubt this will go anywhere beyond a village spat. I seriously doubt that Russia will escalate its exposure in the ME and certainly avoid engaging with SA to the extent of selling anti missile systems. Iran would be less than impressed. Erdoghan would use any Rus missile sales move to add yet another dimension of lunacy in his relationship with Russia. I seriously cannot see Russia initiating any immediate complexity when the USA is making exiting the region noises - better to let the jackal slink away than throw rocks at it.

UAE has built up oil production capacity to the point it can supply part of a shortfall if a few Saudi refineries suffer a blow. If the Saudis really want to drive UAE mad and restore their own diplomacy and treasure, they should simply end the war in Yemen. The Houthis will waste no time in turning their attention to the UAE after liberating the South and perhaps rolling east to the border.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Jul 5 2021 22:50 utc | 19

Why would Israel favor going back to a N.Yemen / S.Yemen, wouldn't they prefer a fake proxy govt to continue the genocidal starvation in N.Yemen?

BTW a North / South Yemen might be a good solution as long as there was an agreement to split oil revenues. There is no justification for letting 20% of the population walk away with 90% of the oil wealth of the country.

Posted by: Christian J. Chuba | Jul 5 2021 23:36 utc | 20

Posted by: donkeytale | Jul 5 2021 22:05 utc | 19

FWIW, I am having no issues in seeing your posts. Here and in other threads.

Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Jul 5 2021 23:55 utc | 21

Let's be perfectly clear: the Saudi Barbarian headchopper regime can't capture North Yemen. The Houthis will never capture South Yemen. The al Hirak independence movement hates the Houthis because it remembers the sack of Aden by the Houthis in 1993. South Yemen's greatest ever mistake was to allow itself to be colonised by North Yemen, and it is time to undo that blunder. Let the Houthis have their own, re established, North Yemen. Let the South be free again.

Posted by: Biswapriya Purkayast | Jul 5 2021 23:59 utc | 22

>>> Biswapriya Purkayast | Jul 5 2021 23:59 utc | 24 <<<

It looks like Marib would be in North Yemen, that should be enough of a dowry for the Houthis to let South Yemen go. It's obvious that you know more about Yemen than I do. Generally, what holds back reasonable agreements is how to split the resources as one group feels they are being short changed by the division.

Posted by: Christian J. Chuba | Jul 6 2021 0:17 utc | 23

You have to be a very, very special kind of stupid to believe anything bellingcat "investigation".

Posted by: RC213V | Jul 6 2021 1:01 utc | 24

RR @ 7. Agree

dh-mtl @ 136 agree

Saudi Arabia Gets a Friend in Need – Russia

""The game changer was a meeting in September 2016 in Hangzhou, China, when on the sidelines of the G20 Summit, Putin met the Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman (MBS, as is commonly known.)""

""In effect, Saudi Arabia and Russia are assuming the leadership of the oil producing countries and helping them take consensus decisions. At the same time, Russian-Saudi bilateral energy cooperation has also made a solid beginning. The two countries have investment plans within the ambit of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF). Saudi Arabia is expected to take a big stake in the LNG project Yamal Phase 2 in the Russian Arctic with equity next only to Novatek. They are discussing swap deals in countries such as India. (Interestingly, Al-Falih sees good prospects for Russian companies’ involvement in Aramco’s ambitious downstream strategy.)""


I think part of this 'friendship' also included an agreement for MBS to tone down his terrorist funding which Russia seems serious to fight (as opposed to the fake US fight)

Posted by: financial matters | Oct 23, 2018 9:56:08 AM | 141

Posted by: financial matters | Jul 6 2021 1:22 utc | 25

financial matters @ 27

OPEC+ has worked out quite well for them. With Russia's involvement oil prices have pushed considerably higher at a time when GDP has fallen off globally for the most part and is only now coming back.

The West pretty much stayed away from the ARAMCO IPO. Most of the money came out of the Region. Any thoughts on that?

The Saudis have been pushing to buy a stake in that Nat Gas project for a few years but it has not yet happened. Could it be the Russians are looking for the Saudis to reciprocate in some fashion and that has not happened yet? Do they need their help considering they have been a poodle of the West for so long?

The Russians seems to have been at arms length with Western Oil companies as they know a whole host of intelligence operatives comes with the package in country. The Russians have been playing it slow and smart gauging the West's response at their moves towards cooperating their old allies.

Posted by: circumspect | Jul 6 2021 1:53 utc | 26

Following this prescient article we have confirmation from the today's AFR:

Oil market on edge as OPEC+ tensions escalate
Alex Gluyas

Jul 6, 2021 – 11.00am
Growing discontent by some of the world’s top oil exporting countries is threatening to boil over as a string of failed meetings leaves members of the OPEC+ cartel in a stalemate.
The latest discussions hit a roadblock on Monday, with the United Arab Emirates refusing to accept a proposed increase in supply, sparking fears of non-compliance among members and a potential disbanding of the alliance.

OPEC+ is in gridlock over a new supply deal. Bloomberg
“If they do struggle to define some sort of central ground, then I feel like the risks are certainly gaining around a potential breakup of the alliance, or at a minimum, compliance starting to wane,” said senior commodity strategist at ANZ, Daniel Hynes.
Oil prices extended their rally as a result of the gridlock. Brent crude climbed 1.3 per cent to $US77.16 a barrel while West Texas Intermediate jumped 1.6 per cent to $US76.26 a barrel.
Most OPEC members reportedly agreed to an increase from August of 400,000 barrels per day, each month until the end of this year – effectively adding around 2 per cent of global oil supply in five months. But the UAE dug in its heels regarding a proposed extension of the agreement until the end of 2022.

Posted by: Paul | Jul 6 2021 4:39 utc | 27

Part of the dispute is about Qatar, which the UAE refuses to restart talks with, unlike KSA.

Posted by: Mina | Jul 6 2021 7:39 utc | 28

The Houthi website name was delisted by the State Dept purge but some victims were able to change the top level domain name to free themselves from U.S. registration listings. In other words they changed '.net' to something like '.ir'

Does anyone know if the Houthis were able to do this and if so what it is?
I've tried '.ye' and '.ir' with no luck.
I like to keep up with official announcements uncensored.

Russia seems reluctant to get overly engaged in the Sunni Gulf states beyond OPEC price meetings and offering weapons sales that seem doomed to failure because of U.S. strong arm tactics. Perhaps they don't want to spread themselves too thin or burn bridges. Their engagement with Iran is positive but not nearly as partisan as U.S. relationships tend to be.

If Russia has a motto, it would be 'never say never'.

Posted by: Christian J. Chuba | Jul 6 2021 11:46 utc | 29

Misspelling there:

In 2015 the Saudi cown prince Mohammad bin Salman

should read

In 2015 the Saudi clown prince Mohammad bin Salman

Posted by: Malchik Ralf | Jul 6 2021 11:53 utc | 30

It was Iran + Syria + Hezbollah + PMU + Russia vs USrael + Turkey + Saudi + UAE + Qatar + EU + Muslim Migrants from EU

Turkey and Qatar split

Turkey and EU split

Qatar and Saudi split

Saudi and UAE split


Posted by: Someone | Jul 6 2021 13:05 utc | 31

The primary driver, to me, is MBS.
In the past, the Saudis sought to buy their way into leadership in the Middle East - primarily vs. Iran.

Since MBS has taken power, Saudi Arabia has:
1) initiated a cold war against Qatar
2) kicked off a shooting war in Yemen
3) started a serious spat with the UAE

This is not a pattern other ME nations can possibly have failed to see - even including the Saudis nearly explicit cooperation with Israel.

I don't know what the longer term impact will be, but I do strongly believe there will be one.

Posted by: c1ue | Jul 6 2021 13:18 utc | 32

MbS has always been disposable to the U.S. Deep State. ZATO is getting ready to throw a failing and bankrupt Saudi Arabia under the bus to start the war with Iran. Our 'intervention' will come far too late to save what's left of Saudi Arabia, but also bleed out Iran to some degree allowing our attack/occupation much easier that it would be otherwise. Israel sees some oil booty and control of the Red Sea entry after the smoke clears and Southern Yemen is (re)established.

KSA has always been the perfect bait - Iran will not exercise much restraint retaliating for direct Saudi provocations (machinated by ZATO, of course). The UAE is our new, best lapdog buddy in the Middle East. And MbZ has always been the CIA's best buddy there. We will make sure that psycho is left standing after the rest of the ME burns down. Someone has to be king.

The Iranian missile threat is stronger than ever in the Persian Gulf and the Saudis are particularly vulnerable. Pulling Patriots and THAAD sets up KSA for an Iranian attack they cannot defend against. We need some provocations first. Watch for the incoming false flags against Iran that will point back to KSA. The U.S. and Israel do not intend to fight with Iran directly (at first). We'll feed the Saudis into the meat-grinder first watch what happens. And like every other U.S. foreign policy failure, we'll be blind to someone else's interests - in this case, China - and it will blow up in our face. Again. [sigh...]

Posted by: PavewayIV | Jul 6 2021 14:03 utc | 33

@PavewayIV #32
You seriously think there is the will in the US to send ground troops into Iran?
Vietnam's population was 40M in 1967 - of which 1/2, give or take, were active opposition. This 40M equates to 20% of the US population in 1967.
Iran's population is 85M today. It equates to over 25% of the US population and it is far from clear to me that there is anything even approaching the RVN contingent. This disregards what you have noted above regarding Iranian missile and other military technologies.
Nor would Russia stand for American troops on its southern border.

Neither do I see Saudi Arabia as being any kind of credible military opponent for Iran - they couldn't subdue almost literally half naked Houthis.

I also don't see any significant portion of KSA's 33M population having any desire to die for MBS but I freely admit I don't know the situation on the ground there.

Posted by: c1ue | Jul 6 2021 14:12 utc | 34

Posted by: c1ue | Jul 6 2021 14:12 utc | 33

Significant portions of KSA population is centered around Jedda, Medina, and Mecca will not take active part in any kinds of conflict unless they involves active threats and actual attack to Islamic holy sites there. I assume just like other gulf countries or even Pakistan and Afghanistan Iranian would

Posted by: Lucci | Jul 6 2021 15:26 utc | 35

@ 32 paveway.... i think it is a viable set up as you describe... not sure if it will pan out in the smooth scenario you describe, but it is possible.. thanks..

Posted by: james | Jul 6 2021 16:01 utc | 36

@Christian J. Chuba #29


Posted by: Wim | Jul 6 2021 16:19 utc | 38

I also don't see any significant portion of KSA's 33M population having any desire to die for MBS

Overweight and greedy---
They need to get back to a population of 1.5 million--
Hunter gathers/traders.

Of course, they are not alone.

Posted by: Duncan Idaho | Jul 6 2021 16:25 utc | 39

The problem with Paveway IV's scenario @32 is the Iranians and Saudis have been talking to each other a lot, and it appears Saudi attitude toward Occupied Palestine has changed back to being an antagonist.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jul 6 2021 16:26 utc | 40

c1ue@33 - "You seriously think there is the will in the US to send ground troops into Iran?"

No, which is the point of finding a willing (or convenient) sacrificial lamb to 'soften them up' and provide casus belli for whatever further evil the U.S. has planned. Like every other failed conquest, we really want Iran thrown into chaos and divided into several smaller (CIA-) manageable chunks. Then we can send in U.N. peacekeepers or some variant of a soft occupation/control scheme.

But 'Yes' to a conflict in the sense of the U.S. Deep State (and Pentagon cronies') ongoing failure to provoke Iran directly into a war. Bennett is not Netanyahu. Israel wants that war and wants an excuse to attack Iran directly without consequences, but needs most of Iran's missiles used or destroyed first. U.S. leaders just needs a war, period. Something about monetary policy and upcoming food riots. I read about it on the internet. (Seriously, they desperately need us little people distracted... somehow).

Saudi Arabia is untenable in its current bankrupt state. MbS's domestic 'bigger jackboots' policy has failed. KSA is to be used one last time before it ceases to exist. The surviving religious and corporate statelets led by factions of the current monarchy will be easy to manipulate. If they behave (and become friends of Israel), maybe MbZ will 'allow' them to join the CIA-approved UAE. If not, then they will spend their existence fending off ISIS and al Qaeda (CIA) attempts to overthrow their statelet.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Jul 6 2021 16:48 utc | 41

Looks like the US Army have fled Bagram, without telling their Afghan "allies" and after turning off the electricity so the looters had a profitable night's work.
US Army steals away in the night while Red Army marched out during the day with their flags flying.
Has Washington done this to create a quagmire for Moscow? Will Moscow respond by taking over responsibility for Afghanistan will GCC and ISI continue to fund and support the Taliban. Perhaps Moscow will encourage Erdogan and his neo-Ottoman empire to do it for Moscow.

Posted by: Ghost Ship | Jul 6 2021 17:02 utc | 42

@ RC 213 V
Apologies for this O/T post but a question. Is your moniker a nod to a certain Honda M/C?

Posted by: Beibdnn | Jul 6 2021 17:09 utc | 43

@Ghost Ship #41

Leaving Afghanistan- indeed, this is what an honorable departure from Afghanistan looks like (Soviet Union, 1989)

Posted by: Billb | Jul 6 2021 17:16 utc | 44

karlof1@39 - "the Iranians and Saudis have been talking to each other a lot..."

You have no idea how terrified this has made 'the powers that be' in the U.S. Deep State. Yet another reason for that particular clown-world-like urgency we saw in D.C. just before invading Iraq. For what it's worth IMO, the psychopathic scheming by my government today is almost palpable. They're about to do something really insane this summer.

The Saudi monarchy and Iranians are not stupid. Left to their own sensibilities, they would negotiate something, not choose war. But the U.S. has no intention of letting either of them decide anything for themselves. We're TEAM OVERTHROW. I can't believe Gaza wasn't planned and accomplished exactly what Israel wanted before the 'big' war. Now they only have to level Lebanon, grab the Litani and and ethnically cleanse Jerusalem ('Jordan is Palestine', etc.) This, while everyone else in the west clutches their pearls and shrieks at evil Iran attacking the Saudis.

c1ue@33 - "Neither do I see Saudi Arabia as being any kind of credible military opponent for Iran..."

We've armed Saudi Arabia to the teeth. The monarchy is like an injured, trapped rat - dangerous when cornered. We'll false-flag KSA and Iran ad nauseum until they lash out, then we'll fan the flames. A well-armed but incompetent Saudi military can still create a lot of carnage and death with aircraft and stand-off weapons. Nobody (especially Iran) expects the Saudis to win, of course. That's not the goal. A costly, destructive war for both sides and internal chaos and division would be the goal. Oh, and elimination of that pesky Iranian oil terminal that keeps exporting oil in defiance of the U.S. imperial dictate. Uh, and perhaps a string of post-KSA statelets that permit IAF overflights to bomb Iran. ZATO is guaranteed to step in before Iran actually sends troops to Saudi Arabia, but we'll sit on the sidelines and cheer the blood-letting until then.

I'm not condoning an irrational and immoral war here - I just know how my psychopathic masters roll. Kind of like when you suddenly can't hear your kids playing upstairs. You just KNOW they're up to something.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Jul 6 2021 17:30 utc | 45



But isn't this something that was tried - unsuccessfully- for the last n dozen years? Why will it is supposed to succeed now (especially)?

How can we know what this admin is up to? Maybe there is a headless train to get back the Iran deal and to appease those crazy Demo ladies, and the rest of the previous Demo admin shtick?

Posted by: D.S. | Jul 6 2021 18:00 utc | 46

@USI4H @40 Hi PavewayIV, Who does The Intercept represent demographically or politically? IE Today?

"Something about monetary policy and upcoming food riots. I read about it on the internet. (Seriously, they desperately need us little people distracted... somehow)."

Kids... brb lol.

Posted by: David G Horsman | Jul 6 2021 18:30 utc | 47

When presented with this. The first tasks is to disentangle reality from agenda.

2 crop failures among Russia, China, Canada and the US. That's a major problem there. It's potential famine/wild inflation depending on your class and status.

The Intercept will become more advisarial when they get more scared. They're are still whistling in the dark. They wear their ideology out in the open though. Very out in the open.

They are an inclusive bunch that's for sure. I have a conflict of interest in that I study them and they provide me with a platform for antifascism.

Posted by: David G Horsman | Jul 6 2021 18:53 utc | 48


Posted by: David G Horsman | Jul 6 2021 18:55 utc | 49

I am also a Canadian comedian so sorry about that. Wink. I kind think that debacle was the sociological tipping point in that faction or organization at least.

Imagine what GG (Greenwald) would think of that particular kind of office politics. It seems linked to Biden article and his departure.

I think I said we were enemies, and perfect allies for it.
Mind you, I would talk to Tucker if I thought it would help.

Posted by: David G Horsman | Jul 6 2021 19:11 utc | 50

b and I have an understanding. I don't troll his small site, and he doesn't write software.
Everybody wins.

Posted by: David G Horsman | Jul 6 2021 19:16 utc | 51

Herzbollah have blamed Saudi's for the recent power cuts in Iraq. (Loss of 1/3 of power from Iran to Iraq).

I don't quite see where this fits in except as a religious based anti Shia operation.

I also reckon that the Wahabi - Shia dislike means more not less open violence in the future. Ben Ladens stated reason for destroying the towers on 9/11 was related to the US bases "in the holy land". (North of Medina in fact) - to control the waterways.

Conclusion - if there is a war with Saudi, one section will be "standard" militarism but the rest could be very messy as religious fanatiscism takes over. Although I may be alone in thinking this, we now have enough examples of "the war will be over by christmas or in a week", to know that this NEVER happens.

Posted by: Stonebird | Jul 6 2021 20:30 utc | 52

Ben Ladens stated reason for destroying the towers on 9/11 was related to the US bases "in the holy land". (North of Medina in fact) - to control the waterways.

Anyone who believes that Ben Laden (sic) was responsible for 9/11 has not been paying attention!

Posted by: foolisholdman | Jul 6 2021 21:55 utc | 53

If purchases of western arms were all it took to create a fearsome military, the Shah's armies would have been well nigh invincible.

Posted by: Feral Finster | Jul 6 2021 23:13 utc | 54

PavewayIV @45--

If that's the case, those at the Deep State's bar won't like this news:

"Iran Hails ‘Good Progress’ in Second Talks With Rival Saudi Arabia, But ‘Complexities’ Remain."

"The talks are the first since Ebrahim Raisi, Iran's conservative chief justice, won presidential elections last month. He is due to take office in August. Raisi has said he supports mending ties with Riyadh, saying, 'There are no obstacles from Iran's side to re-opening embassies... there are no obstacles to ties with Saudi Arabia.'"

The article offers a decent recap on what's recently happened in the Saudi drive to recast its foreign policy. Also Incoming Iranian President Raisi has been talking up other regional heads-of-state, Pakistan's Khan and Syria's Assad as he prepares to assume his post.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jul 6 2021 23:56 utc | 55

karlof1@55 - Agree, and I wish for the best between them for their people. I also applaud Iraq's role in mediating the reconciliation. But to say the Deep State and/or Israel merely "won't like" the developments is probably and understatement. Remember Soleimani and the specific reason he was in Baghdad when we (the U.S.) assassinated him?

"..As part of the incendiary and escalating crisis surrounding the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, there has come an explanation of why the Iranian commander was actually in Baghdad when he was targeted by a US missile strike.

Iraq’s prime minister revealed that he was due to be meeting the Iranian commander to discuss moves being made to ease the confrontation between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia – the crux of so much of strife in the Middle East and beyond.

Adil Abdul-Mahdi was quite clear: “I was supposed to meet him in the morning the day he was killed, he came to deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered from the Saudis to Iran.”

One must be very careful about doing something an occupying homicidal maniac "won't like". The Saudis have gone off-script here. I have to believe the monarchy sees the writing on the wall.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Jul 7 2021 2:27 utc | 56

PavewayIV @ 45

A costly, destructive war for both sides and internal chaos and division would be the goal

Gosh, I was thinking maybe we could just muddle along in geo strategic funk mode, as these psychopathic goals continue to lose their plausibility...

...and imagine Mohammad bin Salman Al Sa'ud in some distant bay on his mega yacht, Serene, surrounded by his last faithful servants(and maybe a handful of high-end trollops), blessed only by that fake Leonardo, Salvator Mundi, hanging on the bulkhead, its depicted crystal orb still perplexing, sucking his thumb.

Posted by: john | Jul 7 2021 9:44 utc | 57

Electricity power stations are being sabotaged in Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq in a similar manner.... this similarity makes it look suspicious and organized.

Posted by: Someone | Jul 7 2021 14:27 utc | 58

Thx again, b, interesting news & possibilities. I also appreciate PavewayIV's speculation/analysis.

IMO, KSA is doomed, but I'm just a crazy anti-monarchist, so what do I know? But Russia & China seem to have much greater respect for the Treaty of Westphalia than USA does, so if KSA switches to their side, it could prolong the "K" part of "KSA", which would be a shame.

OTOH, collapse & chaos in SA (inevitable consequence of the inevitable fall of the monarchy there) would be a huge financial windfall for Russia, leaving them in charge of OPEC, so they may be quite willing to allow/hasten that collapse. I'm fine with that - Russia is a much more responsible actor than KSA - but then Russia could wind up with a problem that the USA has: PetrOligarchs gaining too much power, blocking government from doing anything about Global Warming. And it could be awfully easy for them to sell the idea that Global Warming could be a Good Thing for Russia (Yay! Bikinis & Surfing on Ostrov Bolshevik!).

Posted by: elkern | Jul 7 2021 16:53 utc | 59

@PavewayIV #41
I agree with your assessment on what the US Deep State wants.
What is much less clear to me is if this is achievable using the KSA.
So much of what I see as "thinking" from the US Deep State seems to be mired in the miracles of the USSR and Yugoslavia breakup: the former due to lack of will and economic reality, the latter due to the nation being a conglomeration of 3 major mutually antipathic ethnicities.
But Iran doesn't fall into either category, nor is KSA even on par with Iraq in the 1980s Iraq/Iran war scenario.
As such, I still do not see how the desires of the US Deep State can possibly translate into reality without US boots on the ground in Iran.
I do agree that Israel would cry no tears over the KSA and Iran getting into another 1980s Iraq/Iran style conflict but I simply don't see that as resembling reality based outcomes in any way.
This isn't even a pyrhhic victory scenario: the most likely outcome of an Iran/KSA conflict would be a rapid collapse of the latter leaving Iran as the de facto Arab power in the Middle East.
Unless you think Pakistan would come into the fray on the KSA side?
Or that Europe would intervene?
The former seems highly unlikely given the turn towards China that Imran Khan is tentatively taking; the latter is even less likely unless the UN is completely disbanded. Neither Russia nor China are likely to allow any motions to go through - and even were they to stand aside, I don't see any credible European capability to project power much less a willingness to spend blood and treasure.

Posted by: c1ue | Jul 7 2021 20:54 utc | 60

john@57 +1 for use of the phrase "high-end trollop". Kek.

c1ue@60 - Agree in part. This KSA-under-the-bus plus War against Iran nonsense seems (to me) to be what they are scheming. Can they achieve it? Well, I never underestimate my leaders' awesome synergistic powers of stupidity, arrogance and greed. Their track record is wanting, however. It will probably blow up in their faces in some sad but predictably comical way, a la Ukraine/Crimea. Hopefully, too many people won't die in the process. Unfortunately, we're really, really good at that part.

"This isn't even a pyrhhic victory scenario: the most likely outcome of an Iran/KSA conflict would be a rapid collapse of the latter leaving Iran as the de facto Arab power in the Middle East."

You left out the UAE (MbZ/CIA) as KSA replacement part, though. The UAE has 3.8 million barrels/day (mb/d) capacity now, and is expanding their way to 5 mb/d. The UAE has the best western-equipped and trained mercenary army in the Middle East. They'll pick up whatever pieces they can from a disintegrating KSA, and enjoy $150 bbl oil during/after a Saudi/Iran brawl. Iran isn't going away and will eventually dominate the region, but certainly not in the next few years (thanks to the US). In fact, the UAE is already flexing its muscle over MbS by scavenging the failed Saudi project of Yemen for the choicest pieces (coasts, al Bab Straits, Socotra). We like selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, but the UAE is the Deep State's real BFF. I think they're equally totally amoral, corrupt, greedy and power hungry as KSA, and are also experts at putting on that fake veneer of fake civility and faker feasance to U.S. politicians, who eagerly lap it all up.

Question is could the Saudis be provoked into striking Iran, fearing no consequences? Generally, no. But If it's a choice between an external war and food riots in Riyadh, then war it is. The monarchy always has escape plans. Maybe the KSA will follow through on rolling into Qatar, Iran's Shia buddy. For Iran's side, any provocation against one of their expensive or important friends or coastal facilities would demand swift retaliation. The UAE will be sniveling like a jackal on the sidelines for both sides. Iraq would look out for its interests, but isn't looking for new enemies. Interesting things may happen if a grand sort of alliance can be hammered out among all of them. Or we could sew a few intel lies to keep them all pissed of at each other and 'arrange' the opening shots to get the party started.

Pakis? Complex relations with everyone. I think they'd wait until the smoke clears before making a move. Iraq seems more like an Iranian ally than a Saudi one at this point. Bahrain, Qatar - they would just get out of the way or get swept out with whatever tide rolled in. At some point, the U.S. shows up for the firebombing of Tehran to behead its leadership. The only U.S. boots on the ground will be shady guys with sunglasses and duffel bags of $100 bills looking to buy up anyone that matters. That's always been our first failed step in regime change and why we such at counterinsurgency so much.

The real tell will be if U.S. politicians or press suddenly start a new narrative of demonizing MbS. The bus will be on its way by then. MbS will be slowly cornered (militarily, politically, economically, smear campaign) with the only potential escape route appearing to be a war with Iran. MbS will take the bait. May we live in interesting times.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Jul 8 2021 4:06 utc | 61

foolisholdman | Jul 6 2021 21:55 utc | 53

I used the word "stated".

This I posted elsewhere, which is my take on what happened. ie. the Ben Laden end of it was misdirection to hide the other two groups.

......but I have always thought that there were three groups involved in 9/11. "Set-up and cover-up" => Israel (1). "Follow the money" => Rumsfeld and Cheney (2), Fall-guys", or the "data-based" Saudis (3) etc.

A quick breakdown
(1), Only they have the resources and motivation to set up such a situation. This part includes whatever form of explosives used . ie. I think one of the most plausible is the use of false ceiling plaques (6kg of explosives each plaque) every two floors, which were installed in the couple of weeks prior to the act. (In the twin towers but not 7).
Cover-up Their control of the media etc, and having many well placed operatives who enabled the total cover-up afterwards. (Mueller and Guilliani are two examples)

(2) The cash; Rumsfeld and the Pentagon missing trillions. Cheney was the one who "stood down" the airforce, and organised the remarkably similar "exercise" beforehand - so that the unknowing military would be fooled into thinking this was just a continuation of it.
Cheney then moved Haliburton to Doha. Odd that, things repeat themselves.
This part of the operation was not so successful as it "lost" one plane, (presumably the one which would have targeted No. 7) and the other hit the Finance department of the Pentagon (Element of doubt there, as there could have been interior explosives as well). The hit squad on No. 7 used a direct demolition method.

(3) CIA or FBI, and the Art students (Israeli) and various Flying schools. The Saudi contingent was well "covered" along Shakespeare road, by the neighbours (Mossad). etc. The motivation of Ben L and setting him up to take action against the infidels (the US) near Mecca/Medina.

Update idea; The Wahabis could have been promised or knew about the countries planned to be attacked later. Iraq, Syria etc. etc. This would have been their "reward" for being the fall guys. Wahabi vs Shia.

There still has to be a reckoning to come for the last twenty years.

I missed the biggest part; The taking over of the "Provisional" Government by Cheney as Bush was still in the air, and as the "anti-military expansion" Senators were hidden in Bunkers with no outside access...... Some other time.

Posted by: Stonebird | Jul 8 2021 10:02 utc | 62

foolisholdman | Jul 6 2021 21:55 utc | 53

PS What a lovely video ! Thanks.

Posted by: Stonebird | Jul 8 2021 10:14 utc | 63

Very good article

Posted by: Maman Saber | Jul 8 2021 12:30 utc | 64

Posted by: Stonebird | Jul 8 2021 10:02 utc | 62

The thing about Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, all those Neocons, is they were Nixon's people in the begining, back when they got started. Nixon brought them into government. And later Raygun brought more in. The current situation is to some extent a result of the failure to finish the job when they removed Nixon. They ought to have been much more thorough.

Posted by: Bemildred | Jul 8 2021 13:11 utc | 65

@PavewayIV #61
Is the US Deep State so 12D brilliant or decadently stupid that they really think the UAE (and its under 10M population) can counterbalance Iran?
Are the lessons of (lack of) boots on the ground still unlearned from Iraq?
Or is this more a result of the UAE playing the foreign sponsor game?
That's the one thing I haven't been paying as much attention to: Israel is a past master of it.
The Saudis did it as well, albeit far less efficiently.
China has been really good at it in specific areas for specific goals.
Perhaps MBZ has been quietly doing so all along, or is just another intel agency darling?
The latest OPEC talks did see the UAE try to make a move to increase its relative oil market share but KSA and Russia still dominate the market AFAIK.

Posted by: c1ue | Jul 8 2021 15:27 utc | 66

@Bemildred #65
I would disagree with your assessment that removing the "Nixon apparatchiks" as you put it would change anything.
Those people didn't assume those posts in a vacuum - they are the spokesmodels for the American oligarchy, Republican branch just as the Clinton mob of people (Rahm, Samantha, Nuland etc) are the spokesmodels for the American oligarchy, Democrat branch.

Posted by: c1ue | Jul 8 2021 17:03 utc | 67

Bemildred | Jul 8 2021 13:11 utc | 65

I'm always amazed that these people do not just disappear, they just come back again and again.

Even political whack-a-mole doesn't get them.

So lackeys of the Oligarch-deep shit state get nine lives, and a handful of cookies to keep them fat.


The resistance (Assange etc.) are not so lucky. The latest attempt by the US, to "appeal" the British confinement order (But "humanitarian" no less, or was it "for his own good"?), probably is designed to 1) not admit that the key witness lied, and 2) to make the "appeal" process indefinitely long to compensate for not being able to get their hands on him.

Posted by: Stonebird | Jul 8 2021 19:01 utc | 68

"The resistance (Assange etc.) are not so lucky. The latest attempt by the US, to "appeal" the British confinement order (But "humanitarian" no less, or was it "for his own good"?), probably is designed to 1) not admit that the key witness lied, and 2) to make the "appeal" process indefinitely long to compensate for not being able to get their hands on him."

Posted by: Stonebird | Jul 8 2021 19:01 utc | 68

Agreed, I think if they can't get him, they will stall letting him out, and that seems like where we are now.

Posted by: Bemildred | Jul 8 2021 19:13 utc | 69

@ 69 bemildred.... it highlights how interested in freedom and justice the usa -uk duo are... they're shitting on it regularly as demonstrated in their handing of assange...

Posted by: james | Jul 8 2021 19:31 utc | 70

Posted by: james | Jul 8 2021 19:31 utc | 70

They want to make an example of him. They think like gangsters. Everything starts to make more sense once you figure that out. I've always known we had a lot of crooks running things here (well, since I hit puberty anyway), but they used to try to maintain appearances. Now they want to rub everybodies nose in it.

Posted by: Bemildred | Jul 8 2021 19:39 utc | 71

The comments to this entry are closed.