Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Fascinating, GRG55.
Your post shows about $40B of recent US arms sale to oil producers, and my quick Google only finds about $12B in foreign aid/military assistance.
So about $30B is oil money coming back to the US Defense industry.
For Saudi Arabia their $33B of purchases shown above is between 5 and 10 percent of a whole year's oil exports.

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Fascinating, GRG55.
Your post shows about $40B of recent US arms sale to oil producers, and my quick Google only finds about $12B in foreign aid/military assistance.
So about $30B is oil money coming back to the US Defense industry.
For Saudi Arabia their $33B of purchases shown above is between 5 and 10 percent of a whole year's oil exports.

The core Middle East is the most heavily armed region in the world...with some of the least competent and most corrupt national military leadership anywhere. That combination should scare hell out of everyone...

[The military in places like Egypt looks good only because all the other institutions of government are even more hopeless]

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Arabs agree to pay total cost of a full invasion:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/the-houses-syria-hearing-live-updates/#e68f139f-e012-476c-876e-2467ba30e5e3

Are we now Obama's mercenaries?

NO, obama is just the head mercenary. we are the mercenaries of the saudis and gulf states.

and this - below - is part of how the u.s. is reimbursed for its mercenary services:

NOBODY does it better than America...

Among other problems, the Russians lost about $4 Billion equivalent annual sales of armaments to Libya after the good Colonel was punted.



WASHINGTON — Weapons sales by the United States tripled in 2011 to a record high, driven by major arms sales to Persian Gulf allies concerned about Iran’s regional ambitions, according to a new study for Congress.

Overseas weapons sales by the United States totaled $66.3 billion last year, or more than three-quarters of the global arms market, valued at $85.3 billion in 2011. Russia was a distant second, with $4.8 billion in deals...

...The agreements with Saudi Arabia included the purchase of 84 advanced F-15 fighters, a variety of ammunition, missiles and logistics support, and upgrades of 70 of the F-15 fighters in the current fleet.Sales to Saudi Arabia last year also included dozens of Apache and Black Hawk helicopters, all contributing to a total Saudi weapons deal from the United States of $33.4 billion, according to the study.

The United Arab Emirates purchased a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, an advanced antimissile shield that includes radars and is valued at $3.49 billion, as well as 16 Chinook helicopters for $939 million.

Oman bought 18 F-16 fighters for $1.4 billion.

In keeping with recent trends, most of the weapons purchases, worth about $71.5 billion, were made by developing nations, with about $56.3 billion of that from the United States.

Other significant weapons deals by the United States last year included a $4.1 billion agreement with India for 10 C-17 transport planes and with Taiwan for Patriot antimissile batteries valued at $2 billion — an arms deal that outraged officials in Beijing...

Last edited by GRG55; Today at 01:31 AM.

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

...Odious though their corrupt and theocratic government might be, the people of Iran are an entirely different matter...

As an outsider looking in, it is difficult not to see some parallels with Iran in the disconnect on more and more issues between the people of the United States of America and their government...

[bill]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

NO, obama is just the head mercenary. we are the mercenaries of the saudis and gulf states.

And........

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97R0WN20130828

LONDON | Wed Aug 28, 2013 12:22pm EDTLONDON (Reuters) - BP (BP.L) expects to sign an initial deal in early September to revive Iraq's northern Kirkuk oilfield, an industry source said, a move that could affect regional politics because the field straddles the border with the autonomous Kurdish region.
A deal at Kirkuk would allow the British major - already at work at Iraq's biggest producer, Rumaila, in southern Iraq - to negotiate access to significant reserves in the north. Baghdad would get a trusted, experienced partner to help arrest a huge decline in output from Kirkuk.
"It's an initial 18-month deal to offer support, which will provide an opportunity for BP to negotiate a longer-term development contract," said the source, who is familiar with the negotiations.
BP declined to comment.

http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com...-pipeline.html

Iraq shortlists firms to build $18bn export pipeline
09.05.2013 |
Iraq has shortlisted 12 international companies and consortiums to build the country's first oil export pipeline in decades, and will ask them to submit their bids by the end of this year for an $18 billion project that will make the country less dependent on Persian Gulf export terminals.
..........
Last year Iraq started design and feasibility studies on the pipeline that's expected to carry 2.25 MMbpd. The country is now preparing to start work on the section from Haditha to Aqaba, with a capacity of 1 MMbpd.
A third section of the pipeline, running to Syria's Banias port in the Mediterranean, has been postponed because of the conflict in the
neighboring country. It would have a capacity of 1.25 MMbpd.

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

any theories about motivations for the u.s. to destabilize the middle east? my thinking has been that we are predominantly working for the saudis and gulf states within an islamic civil war. or, if one prefers secular geopolitical terms, in the conflict between the saudis and the iranians for regional dominance.

just thought of another benefit or two to destabilizing the middle east: it keeps the price of energy in europe higher than it would otherwise be, to our competitive advantage, while increasing the dependency of the major oil producers on supplies of u.s. weapons and more generally on u.s. "protection."

[c1ue]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

just thought of another benefit or two to destabilizing the middle east: it keeps the price of energy in europe higher than it would otherwise be, to our competitive advantage, while increasing the dependency of the major oil producers on supplies of u.s. weapons and more generally on u.s. "protection."

That's a double edged sword though - because this opens the door to Gazprom diplomacy.

Although to be fair - I can definitely see how megalomaniacs and/or sociopaths would see the tens of thousands of deaths and entire regions destabilized as being just parts necessary to achieve a Qatari pipeline into Europe, which in turn would loosen the strangehold of Russian natural gas on the European market.

The problem I have with this scenario, however, is that there are plenty of other movements which are counter to this. Climate Change, for example - it is climate change which was driving the switch from coal to natural gas. This is neither optimal from an energy security or a Russian influence standpoint.

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

That's a double edged sword though - because this opens the door to Gazprom diplomacy.

i think that "door" is already wide open, and the sub-baltic-sea pipeline connecting russia directly to germany just makes it all the clearer.

[c1ue]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

i think that "door" is already wide open, and the sub-baltic-sea pipeline connecting russia directly to germany just makes it all the clearer.

I quite agree - but the comment was referring to the genesis of the present state of Middle East relations: the late '60s/early '70s when Iran's government was overthrown. Prior to this, Iran was a valued partner for the US against the Soviet Union. It can be argued that it was during that era when the US switched over to being a tool in the Middle East for Saudi interests.

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

I quite agree - but the comment was referring to the genesis of the present state of Middle East relations: the late '60s/early '70s when Iran's government was overthrown. Prior to this, Iran was a valued partner for the US against the Soviet Union. It can be argued that it was during that era when the US switched over to being a tool in the Middle East for Saudi interests.

i agree; i too was thinking back to the overthrow of mossadegh. then in '56 there was the intervention against the brits/french/israelis. "OUR playground," said uncle sam.

[cobben]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Surely nobody here is surprised?

Contrary to some opinions voiced on this site, the sectarian foundation underpinning this conflict is the primary dynamic.

Thanks for this, confirms my uninitiated interpretation of the area.

This appeared on 0hedge.

Qatar

The Kafala allows workers to be maintained in servitude to an employer or to a business partner, with passports that are confiscated to stop them leaving the country and with courts that are banned so they have no access to legal recourse. If your sponsor does not provide the visa to allow you to exit the country, then you end up staying put until he allows you to, or until you give him what he wants from you.
More than a million workers are forced into labor by slave-drivers with immense wealth. Their salaries are unpaid or paid late, they are denied basic freedoms and yet they are building the multi-billion dollar World Cup 2022infrastructure of luxury hotels and football stadiums.


Qatar: World Cup 2022


There was already great controversy over the granting of the World Cup to Qatar since it was amidst accusations of corruption, underhand tactics and bribery as well as pressure on certain people. A secret meeting between the Emir of Qatar and the French President Nicolas Sarkozy in 2010 ensured that the French would vote for Qatar. One French footballer got $15 million for his support (Zinedine Zidane) and Michel Platini was told to vote for Qatar by the French President. Qatar bought the French football team Paris Saint Germain in return.
Just last year a prominent US businessman (Nasser Beydoun) in Doha was held hostage in economic slavery and indentured servitude for 685 days. He had been trying to get out of Qatar ever since he resigned from his job in 2009 as CEO of a group of restaurants in the country. The exit visa was refused by the group Wataniya Restaurants that had sponsored him to work there. He was sued for $13 million and detained in the country. He was found innocent and allowed to leave after 685 days. He stated: “Though this battle is over the war has just started. The people who held me hostage have a profound immorality, cold egotism and an utter disregard of justice and humanity.”

[Woodsman]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Thank you for sharing that, GRG55. It's so rare that we learn something about Iran and and the Iranian people that isn't based on fear and disinformation. Have you seen the wonderfully informative and enlightening documentary by travel author Rick Steeves on his travels in Iran? I can't recommend it enough.

I'm reminded of JFK's speech at American University the summer before his murder:

“No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue...So, let us not be blind to our differences--but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal."

The government of Iran, regrettably like our own as of late, operates on the basis of fear and suspicion. Its sustains what remains of its legitimacy through that fear and it's no great insight to understand the Iranian leadership as a mirror image of our own.

Our leaders stoke the fears of low information constituencies, as does the Iranian government. The base of the mullahs' support are of the same general character as our own low information cohort - limited educated, propaganda addled, fundamentalist, fear motivated. Our leaders, like theirs, are a most cynical lot whose dedication to their ideology is trumped only by their dedication to their privilege. Iran is not a free society and their people lost their few liberties at the hands of a repressive theocracy. And since before 9/11 we seem just as eager to trade away our liberties in response to trumped up fears.

There's nothing any one of us can do to alter the course of events that have been set in motion. They will have their wars and we have no say in the matter.

[c1ue]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Contrary to some opinions voiced on this site, the sectarian foundation underpinning this conflict is the primary dynamic.

So you believe.

Others disagree.

For one thing, if sectarian conflict were really the primary driver, why then was Iraq such a good friend when Saddam was around? At least until he figured Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were far easier targets then Iran.

Saddam was not in any way a Shiite.

Why also is not Saudi Arabia meddling in Muslim nations further away, like Indonesia? Central Asia?

Equally the past cozy relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran - pre-Khomeini - shows clearly that religion didn't matter then. Iran didn't suddenly turn Shia overnight.

[shiny!]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Surely nobody here is surprised?

Who do you think paid for most of the costs of Gulf War I? Why do you think General Schwarzkopf was instructed to stop short of deposing Saddam (but now the USA is being urged to lead the overthrow of Assad)? Take a good guess why the the USA, after Bush Sr. used Voice of America radio to encourage disgruntled Iraqis (which not surprisingly turned out to be predominantly the Shia and Kurds) to rise up and overthrow their government, refused to intervene to prevent the ensuing reprisals and slaughter by Saddam's loyalist forces?

In 1991 Iran, still exhausted and drained by 8 years of war with Iraq, could do very little to influence the outcomes. 20+ years later the chess pieces on the game board are arranged just a little bit differently. The Saudi's regard the Shia as apostates. Contrary to some opinions voiced on this site, the sectarian foundation underpinning this conflict is the primary dynamic.

The regime in Iran, subject to condemnation and US led sanctions, is odious. But no more so than the medievals that run Saudi Arabia, which enjoys unconditional support from the USA and its European allies.

Odious though their corrupt and theocratic government might be, the people of Iran are an entirely different matter. I was in one of the Arab Emirates in the Persian Gulf on the afternoon and evening of 9/11 (it was afternoon in the Gulf as that morning's events were unfolding in NY and D.C.). I witnessed first hand, with utter dismay and a naive lack of understanding at the time, the rejoicing going on among many of the Arabs (I lost track of the number that volunteered to me, a complete stranger, that it was "the happiest day of their life"). Across the Gulf something quite different was happening:

"On the evening of September 11, 2001, about ten thousand Iranian people gathered in Madar Square, on the north side of Tehran, in a spontaneous candlelight vigil to express sympathy and support for the American People"

I had a friend in Albuquerque who's stepfather had immigrated here from Iran. Shortly after Bush's "Axis of Evil" State of the Union address she went to visit her relatives in Iran. She spent a lot of time with University students her age. All of them expressed dismay at Bush's comments. They couldn't understand why the U.S. was determined to make Iran an enemy. They didn't like their fundamentalist religious leaders. They liked the United States and only wanted to be our friends.

Bush really blew it. How might things have been different if he had expressed affection for the Iranian people and sympathy for their plight?

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

So you believe.

Others disagree.

For one thing, if sectarian conflict were really the primary driver, why then was Iraq such a good friend when Saddam was around? At least until he figured Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were far easier targets then Iran.

Saddam was not in any way a Shiite.

Why also is not Saudi Arabia meddling in Muslim nations further away, like Indonesia? Central Asia?

Equally the past cozy relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran - pre-Khomeini - shows clearly that religion didn't matter then. Iran didn't suddenly turn Shia overnight.

things change, c1ue. as a trend, secular regimes have fallen to be replaced by sectarian ones.

saddam was a secular vicious dictator whom the u.s. supported in fighting the mullah-led iran- let them beat each other to death. the "mission accomplished" by the george w. bush invasion was the installation of an iran-friendly shiite regime in baghdad ,[why do you think they allow flights through their airspace from iran supplying syria and hezbollah?] with sectarian splinters in the sunni west and the kurdish north. mossedegh was a secular leftist, deposed by the cia in favor of a secular dictator, then deposed and replaced by a sectarian shiite regime. gamel nasser was a secular military leftist baathist pan-arabist, replaced by the secular military sadat, replaced by the secular military mubarek, replaced by a sectarian muslim brotherhood regime, recently deposed. the saudi royals subsidize the sunni wahabbis to ensure their own legitimacy as the guardians of mecca. al-queda wants to depose the saudis for their corruption and friendship with the west, and restore a conservative sunni caliphate, the taliban's afghanistan writ large. the iranian mullahs want to create a shiite persian empire.

the big picture is the struggle of shiite and sunni, whenever and wherever populations have been freed from military dictatorship, what we just witnessed in egypt.

why do you expect every historical example to tell the same simple story?

it shouldn't be so hard to understand sectarian struggle: just look at the history of northern ireland. the root process behind sectarian stuggle is essentially tribalism.