« Proper procedure, and ultimately lives, sacrificed partly due to political correctness? | artappraiser's Blog | The White House clearly states its 4 priorities on the health care bill »
Saudi Arabia has been conducting an all-out war with Shiite rebels in Yemen and Iran doesn't like it
...Iran warned Saudi Arabia yesterday not to become further entangled in supporting the Yemen Government's drive to put down Shia Muslim rebels.from
After a week of Saudi air raids and the imposition of a naval blockade by Riyadh to prevent weapons from reaching the insurgents, Iran issued comments that are certain to escalate tensions between the regional powers...
Iran issues tacit warning to Saudi Arabia over attacks on rebels, by James Hider for The Times (of London,) November 12.
Background here in an AFP piece from 2 days ago, with a regional summary at the end:
Tehran denies helping the rebels, and a Saudi source has told AFP there is no evidence of active Iranian involvement.
Syria and Saudi Arabia's partners in the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) -- which groups Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates -- meanwhile voiced support for Riyadh.
"The GCC is always ready to stand alongside Saudi Arabia in the face of dangers and aggressions," Omani Foreign Minister Yussef bin Alawi bin Abdullah said at a GCC ministerial meeting in Doha.
In Damascus, a government official quoted by state-run SANA news agency said: "Syria supports the legitimate right of the kingdom to defend its sovereignty and the integrity of its territory."
In Geneva, the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) said the number of people displaced or affected by fighting between rebels and government forces had climbed to 175,000 since 2004, when the conflict first broke out.
Following TPMCafe tradition, how can we blame this on Israel? I have confidence someone here can do it.
Advertisement
News Analysis: Saudis Court Trouble in Fight With Yemeni Rebels
by ROBERT F. WORTH
New York Times, November 12, 2009
November 12, 2009 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a blog by a group dedicated to Jewish settlements, so it almost reaches your criteria, but even it doesn't have any way to pin the crisis on Israel.
November 12, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
also, some good background:http://washmena.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/yemen-water-crisis-threatens-swelling-population/
November 12, 2009 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The importance of this conflict between the Saudis and Iran is that it illustrates a point often neglected in discussion of Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. The fear of a nuclear armed Iran is not limited to the U.S., Europe, and Israel, but is widespread in the Arab world as well. It is unlikely that the Arab states will publicly support U.S./European efforts to constrain Iran by sanctions, but I expect that they are privately supportive, and in any case, unlikely to intervene to help Iran.
November 12, 2009 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've looked around and haven't seen anything from Turkey about this. As one of the big 3, I wonder what they are thinking?
November 12, 2009 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
really good question.
this may go some ways towards providing an answer:
"During the Cold War, the United States and Turkey formed a "strategic partnership" based on both countries' fear of Soviet intervention in the Middle East. The Truman Doctrine offered a specific guarantee that both Turkey and Greece would be protected from Soviet aggression - a fear that was quite real in Turkey at the time. In exchange, the United States received access to military bases, support in the Korean War and a strategically advantageous position in the Middle East. Despite serious disagreements - particularly over Cyprus - the relationship worked to each sides' mutual advantage until the Berlin Wall fell 20 years ago.
Today, the United States wants Turkish support on a wide variety of important issues, including stabilizing Iraq, supporting the mission in Afghanistan, preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, moving energy to Europe, serving as a Muslim ally, and providing stability in its neighborhood.
In exchange, the United States offers security guarantees, military assistance, and the benefits that accrue from an alliance with the world' most powerful military. All of these things are very important to Turkey (and to many other countries). The problem is that the United States is not in a position to credibly threaten to withhold these benefits without undermining the international order in which it has invested so much. For example, both Washington and Ankara know that Turkey's stance on Iran's nuclear program will not jeopardize the American security blanket."
-Ben Katcher
I highly recommend this whole article (it's not very long- the only necessary work to be done while reading it is a trip to the dictionary to look up the word 'fungible.')
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/11/what_can_americ/
November 13, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Turkey and Iran also have common cause in opposing PKK terrorism in their 'Kurdistans.'
November 13, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
and recently Turkey has become closer to Syria as well.
November 13, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh man, the whole PKK thing is complicating and fascinating re: Turkey/Iran/Iraq, I delved into that in the past. A somewhat related-did you see the story about what Peter Galbraith has actually been up to with the Iraqi Kurds?
November 13, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow. just wow.
November 13, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the real world, the fear of a nuclear-armed Iran is limited to Israel. The U.S. and Europe are drawn into this phony crisis because, at the behest of the U.S., we all support Israel no matter how batty and blood-drenched its policies or how extreme its demands. Israel wants Iran "pacified" and reduced to vassal state; the nuclear issue is a red herring, a trumped-up charge to boost emotional temperature. This internecine scrap over a marginal pesthole will be prattled as further evidence of Iranian "aggression", and sooner or later, we'll be in another stove-pipe conflict.
November 13, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, Curt, much of the world's oil and gas supply being in the area, including neighboring Russia, doesn't really have much to do with the European and American concerns about further nuclear arms in the area. Yes, you've made me see, it's all about making sure there is always a place for Jews there.
November 13, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably can't blame it on Israel, but there have been two interesting Israel-related background stories in connection with Yemen recently. Last fall, Yemen's president accused a Sunni terror cell that was involved in the bombing of the US embassy of having ties to Israeli intelligence, and the government released what it claimed were email communications between the cell and Olmert. And this year, the Jewish Agency and the US State department have carried out operations to evacuate much of Yemen's small Jewish community to Israel.
November 13, 2009 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shall we see what the wogs have to say about these goings on in their homelands? It appears there is a perception that WE have our fingers in the mix.
Fancy that.
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/11/fawwaz-trabulso-on-yemeni-conflict.html
November 13, 2009 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
From the angryarab article:
"the regime in sanna did not limit its oppression to its military and security tools but had pushed sectarian , regional and tribal elements against each other north and south of the country , now it is toting to the Saudi and US administrations the dangers of " al qaida" to guarantee the continuity of the foreign legitimacy bestowed upon it."
The regime in sanna does know how to "milk the hand that sooths it": the dual specter of Iran and al Qaeda is a sure way for a regime in need of a military upgrade to obtain what it needs from us.
November 13, 2009 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
No doubt Iran used this tactic re Iraq pre-invasion, and it is very cost-effective for the user while expensive for us, and after a point, it becomes self-perpetuating, both when our interventions provoke backlash directly, or when regimes use similar tactics, noting the 'success' elsewhere.
November 13, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
diachronic, ask and you shall receive. From the Khaleej Times, a voice cries out against American withdrawal:
November 13, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
We seem to be a little confused about which Salafist AQ-linked terrorists are in the okey-dokey column. If they are targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon or the Revolutionary Guard in Iran, that's one thing. It's another scenario altogether when Pakistan and northern Africa & environs are involved.
Our Saudi "allies" seem a bit lax in cutting off the funding for these groups and we appear to be giving them the traditional/historical slack in spite of everything.
November 13, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never heard of this. Not once.
Just reminds me of how ignorant I really am.
I read and write all day. Never heard of this or ignored it.
Every time I hear of the Saudis I think of idiot billionaires wearing white robes and holding hands with one of those goddamn Bushes.
November 13, 2009 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dickday,
You have more than once bemoaned that you did not know about this or that global story on my threads, and I realize that that humility is part of your style which is endearing to many of us here, but can I make a suggestion on that front? I think if you add to your daily surf a glance at Google News' world page:
http://news.google.com/news/section?pz=1&cf=all&topic=w&ict=ln
you could do a pretty decent job of not sliding into the Amerocentrism that I think is the bain of much of the U.S. blogosphere. I don't know that much myself (as lally is often wont to tell me,) I just get the dead tree New York Times and look over their coverage and surf from there. But from my past experience as a news junkie, I think Google News' world page does a decent job of hitting most of the major stories of the day, and even if you don't read further into the entries but just look at what's there, you can get some balance about what is going on from doing that, a better idea of the big big world someone like President Obama is juggling, and of complicating factors to many decisions.
November 13, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better to follow the news about furriners from the furrin sources, themselves.
For instance, you will see lots of regional news in Israeli media orgs discussing their neighbors such as Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, etc. Naturally, the articles are usually centered around the Israeli perspective on whatever it is and cross-checking what the actual locals have to say about such-and-such issue is imperative in order to get the big picture.
Another great resource are blogs by specialists who are fluent in the local lingo(s).
Joshua Landis' Syria Comment and Marc Lynch @ foreignpolicy.com are excellent resources. Landis provides frequent compilations of diverse articles on the region (one stop shopping) and Lynch provides trenchant analysis (his area of expertise is Egypt, monitoring the Arab press and the I/P conflict).
Marc Lynch
http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com
If I had to choose one resource, it would be Landis for the quick 'n easy access to relevent articles on the region.
http://joshualandis.com/blog/
November 13, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
But of course doing that alone would leave out most of the world. And he wouldn't have much sense about what was going on in Africa, Europe, Latin American, Australia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Russia and the former USSR satellites, the Balkans...something like the recent stresses between Thailand and Cambodia or the recent call to shoot criminals on site in South Africa.
And someone doing that might fall prey to the idea that Israel/Palestine was the center of the world, which is a syndrome that caused me to add a piece of snark to the end of this post.
Lot of people here like to follow American politics closely and don't have a lot of time left after that. I think the healthiest thing for them would be to take a bounce around the world once in a while, as generalized as that might be. Looking at google world news page will do that for you. But that's just me. (And by the way, it does feature foreign sources, the foreign sources that those foreigners are actually reading--like Xinhuanet, Al Jazeera, Ha'aretz, BBC, Ria Novosti.)
November 13, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
But of course doing that alone would leave out most of the world. And he wouldn't have much sense about what was going on in Africa, Europe, Latin American, Australia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Russia and the former USSR satellites, the Balkans...something like the recent stresses between Thailand and Cambodia or the recent call to shoot criminals on site in South Africa.
The region under discussion is the ME not "most of the world".
For a FP blog attempts to cover the known universe, Steve Clemon's "The Washington Note" would be a good choice. ;~{)
(Although, he disabled comments of late saying..."I will consider turning the comments on if I receive apologies from those who have violated any sense of decency on this blog".....)
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/11/comments_closed/
I make ample use of googlenews in the context of searching for more info on specific newstopics of interest.
I agree with you about the limited time factor for those who concentrate on other areas. Syria Comment is "healthy" for those who want to learn about the wider ME because the aggregator is so knowledgeable about the region and chooses articles according to their significence....and, doesn't generally endorse, dismiss, or comment on the often contradictory viewpoints on offer.
Despite your pique at the very notion, Israel IS at the center of much that happens in the region. So much of American FP is designed to reflect that reality; which extends to countries such as Turkey (especially in the area of military-to-military co-operation/interoperability between Turkey, Israel and US. The Israelis didn't forge their alliances with Turkey without the assist of American actors greasing the skids)
AFAIC, Israel would be better served without the running interference of duly loyal Uncle Sammies who believe they know best despite all the evidence to the contrary. Really muddles things up.
November 13, 2009 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
AA:
Nice work again AA. True confession--when I read the title of your post, the first thing I thought to do was to write that even the most virulent hater of Israel at the Cafe couldn't blame Israel for this one. But then I said no, I'm not going to do that, and lo and behold, you had already done went and did that! You troublemaker. Hee.
The presumption in so many circles of really smart people who ain't never fooled by nobody is that peace will indeed guide the planets when the Jews and Palesinians are finally able to reach a peaceful two-state solution. I'm all for such a solution and, as at least what I believe you recognize, it's what I yearn for in my kishkes. But I yearn for that not because I buy into the dime-store propaganda that Israel's aggression is the be-all and end-all of all that is wrong in the Middle East or in the world.
To help put perspective on this latest non-Israeli generated scrap in the Middle East, permit me to recommend a valuable book, Vali Nasr's "The Shia Revival", subtitled "How Conflicts within Islam Will Shape the Future". And this unapologetic zionist who sees the ongoing vestiges of something fundamentally anti-Jewish in the world's obsession with the Jewish State and ain't afraid or embarassed to say so, learned of the book he recommends not from his rabbi or from AIPAC's agent in his neighborhood, but rather from a list of books recommended by Joshua Landis, a noted Middle East scholar at the University of Oklahoma, and hardly a lackey for the yids. FWIW, look what else Landis recommends:
http://www.amazon.com/Joshua-Landis-recommends-books-Middle/lm/R2523SC37HKBHF
I've said it once and I'll say it again, the Middle East, like life, ain't linear. Sometimes, try as you might, you can't uncomplicate things by making them simple. Dang.
Cheers.
Bruce
November 13, 2009 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some Sunni commenters on Joshua Landis' Syria Comment blog would accuse him of being a "lacky for the yids" because Landis encourages dialogue with Israelis and zionists on his blog. (They also castigate the Shiites who engage the yids in discussions)
Go figger huh? It's sooooooooooooo hard to keep track of which branch of Islam is the most irredentionist....Sort of like wading through the crap about AQ ally Saddam and his nukes during the long run-up to war on Iraq...
November 13, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is a fantastic list, Bruce. Makes me ashamed of what I haven't read and reminds me that I must read Robin Wright's book.
The Sunni vs. Shiite topic has always been fascinating to me, but perhaps more so, how Arabia vs. Persia affects attitudes and behaviors and the type of Islam that became dominant:
I think an important point people forget about Iran is that also has a strong and ancient Persian nationalist pride that goes way beyond Islam, not having much of the tribal nomad tradition of the Gulf states, they are a very old nation state like China. That suggests to me that Sunni Islam was more of a unifying, nation-making factor for gulf Arabs than Shia Islam was for Iran.
Checking out the basics of the
Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf provides some food for thought on the topic at hand--
I note that the Yemen info. there has been marked as needing updating and admit that I didn't check that out.
P.S. Your joke about the local AIPAC agent was especially funny because I imagine there actually is one or two of those on the Upper West Side. :-)
November 13, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really enjoyed the comments on this thread more than usual, most people just trying to figure out the situation and offering info., rather than spending their time telling others what to think.
November 13, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 16, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey AA. Thanks for helping me out in that MJ thread. I've been naughty lately and didn't want to keep it up, but I'm glad you provided that link to that exchange re Goldberg. I e-mailed Goldberg to let him know about MJ's most recent cheap shot. He's a nice guy and he wrote back and I'll let you know what he said some other time. Suffice it to say that he sees little reason to help MJ attain notoriety by responding in any kind whatsoever. Gosh, I generally follow that line of thought, but the last two days or so have me a bit agitated! lol
Thanks for sticking up for your crazy friend.
Bruce
November 18, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're welcome. Actually, I get the urge to butt in when I see reasonable people might be making an erroneous judgment because of insufficient or erroneous information. It's unfortunate that sometimes Rosenberg dislikes it enough when his narratives are ruined (often with his own previous words) that he responds, and it's tough not to reply depending on the stupidity of the insult, but I try my best (not to reply, that is.) It's obviously a topic of more passion for you than for me, so it must be tough for you. If it's any help, I believe your commentary is appreciated by a lot of readers here--even ones that disagree with you--and they miss it when you go missing in action (Example: do you think someone like DanK is interested in discussions with only people like AnnaA or Rosenberg himself? Hah.)
November 18, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks AA, I can't speak for Dan although we have had some really interesting exchanges as far as I am concerned. The rhetoric is becoming harsher now, so much so that Josh Marshall decided to get involved the other day in a post by Bluecanary (who I believe is also Colindale).
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/bluecanary/2009/11/anyone-here-interested-in-fact.php
I guess I don't help things by displaying anger, and I don't have it in my bones to respond rationally to the increased cavalier analogies being drawn between Israel and the Nazis. I'm honestly inclined to settle with those kind of folks in more primitive ways. Another one of my flaws I guess.
On another note, what do you think of the position taken by the poster we engaged with on MJ's thread that there is a distinction to be drawn between bloggers who are activists and bloggers who are journalists? I asked him to explain how that impacts on standards, and he responded with what I thought was a non sequiter, namely that it wasn't relevant because there was no factual dispute between MJ and me in this instance. I don't get that; my point was that he was misrepresenting Goldberg as one who did not recognize that there are Jewish extremists when that very argument was made by Goldberg yesterday.
But in any event, if MJ Rosenberg is an "activist" do we judge activists for accuracy differently than we judge journalists? Some might argue that activists, if anything, should be more accurate! :)
And what of this notion the poster also proffered that MJ is an activist writing to activists. Is that who we are?
If I had the time, all of this would make for an interesting blogpost, but I would love to hear your thoughts.
November 18, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's not a journalist or activist, he's a lobbyist, just like those with AIPAC. He doesn't use the word but is not ashamed of the job description as it is in his biographies scattered around the net.
I expect lobbyists, op-ed writers, and pundits to spin, war-room style, to push one interpretation of a story over another.
If they are professional, and want a good reputation, though, I don't expect them to:
1) totally misrepresent or change what other people say, (especially when they do it with an article they've linked to that one can read for oneself and see that it doesn't say what they say it says! or with the writing of someone anyone can check for themselves! doh!) And call other people names or other kinds of intentionally inflammatory insults
2) continually change their narrative to fit the current point they need to make, even if it refutes main principles they stand for
3) blatantly inaccurately smear other people
4) make personal vendettas, and in the process losing all sense of that which they are trying to promote
5) just making something ridiculous up about someone else by labelling, calling them names, or misrepresenting their record
6) just make other stuff up
7) don't read carefully before offering an opinion on another's words
8) don't know how to research the past opinions of others, or just don't care to
9) react without thinking and offer arguments to breaking news without thinking it through
10) use all kinds of blatant logical fallacies that a smart child could see through...
I could go on....
All of these things defeat the purpose of trying to convince other people of the righteousness of their cause, which is supposedly the job of such persons. Many do some of this stuff, which is why they have a bad name in general. Few do all of it, and that is what makes them professional, and often successful in their goals. Lots of amateur bloggers in their jammies in mom's basement do all of it, contributing to the noise on the internet and to the bread and circuses polarization of politics and little else.
November 18, 2009 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink