Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15812
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby NRao » 17 Oct 2015 07:47

RA,

Two items of (old) interest:

* India had/has a treaty with Iran to allow India to use Iranian soil for military operations (against Pakistan).
* And, Balauch had requested that they be part of India

Have not followed these for eons. By any chance any idea where they stand?

Falijee
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6224
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby Falijee » 06 Nov 2015 06:41

Saudi hand-chopping incident: No exit visa for Indian maid if 'assault' is mentioned
After her hands were chopped off by her employer in Saudi Arabia last month, Tamil Nadu's Munirathinam Kasthuri is now finding it difficult to leave the country and return to India. Her sponsor is refusing to give an exit visa if the case of assault if not withdrawn.
(Is GOI powerless in this flagrant disregard of international law and yet again use of "money diplomacy" ) :evil:
As per Saudi rules, the exit visa is granted by the employer or the sponsor. After the incident came to light, the Indian embassy in Riyadh has lodged a complaint with the Saudi foreign ministry.
However, sources told HT that India was not ready to withdraw the case and was in talks with Saudi Arabia to resolve it.
In September, a Saudi diplomat was booked for allegedly raping two Nepali women. The women, aged around 30, have alleged that they were abducted and raped by the diplomat repeatedly in a flat here, on the outskirts of Delhi. Saudi Arabia refused to withdraw his diplomatic immunity.
And ironies of ironies, this primitive nation, is a member of the UN Human Rights Council !

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9194
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby arun » 06 Jan 2016 20:05

X Posted from the "Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation" thread.

US Senator Ron Johnson in an interview by Wolf Blitzer on CNN program “The Situation Room” says the Islamic Republic of Pakistan could sell a nuclear weapon to Saudi Arabia:

THE SITUATION ROOM

Interview With Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson; ……………………….

Aired January 4, 2016 - 18:00 ET ………………………………….

BLITZER: Given the tensions right now, Senator, between Iran and Saudi Arabia, there is concern. I know it from sources that I have spoken to. The Saudis may, when all is said and done, simply go out, not necessarily even develop or build a nuclear bomb, but just buy one maybe from Pakistan. They certainly have the cash to do so.

Is that really credible?

JOHNSON: It certainly was a concern of many of us that opposed the Iran nuclear agreement, was that this could actually produce a proliferation of a nuclear arms race within the Middle East. And I think that is certainly a real risk that we have to take into account.

Saudi has good relationships with Pakistan. They could just buy a weapon and again further destabilize the Middle East.


From Here:

CNN

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47887
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby ramana » 08 Jan 2016 23:10

X-posting a few posts.....

deejay wrote:From Indian Express but saw it tracking the Levant tweets of @IraqiSecurity

http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/a-war-against-itself/

A War Against Itself
To seriously tackle terror, Saudi Arabia would have to fight the very forces it supports.

Saudi Arabia’s alleged 34-nation Islamic alliance against terrorism is neither a game changer nor a serious attempt at combating Islamist terrorism. The Saudi kingdom – which is named after its royal family – lacks both the credibility and capability to lead any sort of alliance against the very same intolerance and violence that it inspires, supports and exports.
This so-called alliance is nothing more than a public relations stunt that attempts to show the world that Saudi Arabia seriously wants to be engaged in the fight against Islamist terrorism. The recent mass execution of 47 men on terrorism charges – the largest mass execution in the country since 1980 – was a transparent attempt to equate political dissent with actual terrorism.
In Yemen, the Saudi-led military coalition is empowering Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and ISIS, by giving those terrorist groups much-needed breathing space. Furthermore, the Saudis have had to rely on Australian and Colombian mercenaries to fight the Yemeni Houthi rebels. If the Saudis have to recruit non-Muslim mercenaries to fight in their own backyard, it is difficult to see how Somalia, Mauritania and Maldives’ joining the Islamic alliance is anything other than a symbolic gesture. Even Yemen and Libya, two countries currently being torn apart in civil war, were bizarrely declared to be part of this virtual alliance.
Immediately after the alliance was announced, several Muslim-majority states declared surprise at being part of a coalition they didn’t sign up to. Lebanon, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia publicly appeared confused at being included in an alliance without their knowledge.
The alliance was announced by the Saudi Deputy Crown Prince and Defence Minister Mohammed bin Salman, a young prince who is keen on flexing his muscles at his enemies both abroad and at home. The German intelligence agency has publicly warned that internal power struggles between rival princes and an impulsive interventionist foreign policy risks destabilising the Middle East. When the German government rebuked its own agency for making this unusual and blunt political assessment, the German Vice-Chancellor then attacked Saudi Arabia for funding extremist Wahhabi mosques all over the world and declared that the “time for looking away is over”.
The West has long known about the key and destructive role that Saudi Arabia plays in the financing and support of terrorist groups worldwide. In a 2009 leaked diplomat cable, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton writes that Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups including Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Clinton also expressed concern that the Saudi government is reluctant to stem this flow of funds to terrorist organisations. Another cable reveals how the Pakistani militant organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba, responsible for the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, used a Saudi-based front company to fund its activities.
Furthermore, a June 2013 European Union policy department report traced the involvement of Saudi-backed Wahhabism in the support and supply of arms to extremist groups in the Middle East, North Africa and South and Southeast Asia. The EU report also details the disturbing handling, manipulation and direct use of terrorist organisations by the Saudi government starting with the jihadists in Afghanistan and continuing today with the jihadists in Syria.
U.S. Vice President Biden even went on the record last year to admit that the biggest problem in Syria were U.S. allies – including Saudi Arabia – who were so determined to take down Assad and spark a Sunni-Shia sectarian war that they funneled hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tonnes of weapons to anyone who would fight Assad. This policy empowered Al-Qaeda and led to the creation and territorial expansion of ISIS.
In addition to this direct military and intelligence support, Saudi Arabia also invests petrodollars in mosques and schools around the world that indoctrinate generations of young Muslims with the same ideological hate-filled discourse that forms the religious foundations of groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS. It is no surprise then that ISIS use Saudi religious textbooks for their schools in Syria and Iraq, which are educating the next generation of terrorists.
The West has been turning a blind eye to all the mounting evidence of Saudi Arabia’s historical and current complicity in Islamist terrorism because of energy security and a longstanding foreign policy that revolves around propping up minority rule and dictators who ensure “stability” through violence and authoritarianism. Saudi Arabia also spends much of its petrodollars on buying influence in Western power circles. This investment in political power enables much of the silence and acquiescence towards Saudi’s notorious links with terrorism.

In order to seriously tackle Islamist terrorism, Saudi Arabia would have to declare war against itself and fight the very same intolerant forces they support. This war would amount to suicide for the ruling Al-Saud family, who have been actively promoting an intolerant and violent form of Wahhabi Islam since the 18th century.


UlanBatori wrote:the houthis have meantime downed a F-16

No announcement from them. Could be a longer-range rocket-ramjet missile? Putin putting some serious assets to work?

BTW, what is your assessment of Saudi/COuW losses? There must be some threshold beyond which the COuW will turn their guns on each other and start marching backward to Riyadh. Seems accepted now even in the western in-bedded media that the Yemen misadventure is a "stalemate". For a war that has NATO, Gelf, and North Africa all ganged up on this little nation, that is one daunting statement.

KSA rage at Eyeran is doubtless 50% that and 50% Syria jollies. Wonder what comes next. Usually in 'stalemates' there is a Tet Offensive, a Dien Bien Phu, a Durand Tunnel, a Mogadishu, a Beirut barracks etc. that then triggers the landslide and turns the stalemate into a rout.


Philip wrote:https://www.rt.com/op-edge/327963-saudi-arabia-iran-west-conflict/
Saudi Arabia - a monster of the West's creation
John Wight
Published time: 5 Jan, 2016 11:19
The deepening crisis between Saudi Arabia and Iran, following the controversial execution of Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr by the Saudis, shows no evidence of abating. Direct military confrontation is now a distinct possibility.

READ MORE: Uproar in Middle East after Saudi Arabia executes top Shiite cleric

For many experts, analysts, commentators, and people familiar with the Middle East, the prospect of military conflict between the Saudis and the Iranians will come as no surprise. For some years both countries have been engaged in a de facto Cold War as representatives of Sunni and Shia Islam each seek to establish their legitimacy. This dates back to the original schism of 632AD, after Prophet Muhammad’s death.

In its modern incarnation, the fissure within Islam between both branches and their respective legitimacy as representatives of the true faith has taken on political and geopolitical dimensions, given the wider strategic importance of the resource-rich Arab and Muslim world.

Relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran deteriorated rapidly in the wake of the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, which toppled the US puppet regime led by the Shah. The Saudis, worried about growing Shiite influence in the region as a consequence, and regarding themselves as the theological guardians of Sunni Islam, have worked to oppose any such influence at every turn in the decades since.

The oppression of its own Shiite minority, along with the repression of Shiite pro democracy movements in Bahrain and Yemen in recent years, is evidence of Riyadh’s increasingly aggressive stance in the region, proving a key factor in its destabilization in the wake of the so-called Arab Spring of 2011. This revolutionary surge swept through Tunisia and Egypt only to conclude in a counter revolutionary backlash, wherein it was hijacked by extremists who were fuelled by a literalist interpretation of Sunni Islam; one almost indistinguishable from the Wahhabi religious doctrine that underpins the Saudi state.

The role of the Saudis in supporting various groups fighting in Syria is by now well known, which in conjunction with the upsurge in beheadings and executions being carried out in the kingdom over the past two years, suggests a regime consumed with insecurity over the dominance of Sunni Islam as a political force. The announcement on Monday that Sudan had decided to cut diplomatic ties with Tehran, and with Bahrain also lining up alongside Riyadh, merely confirms this. Add to the mix the collapse of US leadership and influence in the region and the prospect of the crisis lapsing into open conflict is very real.

Sudan sever ties with Iran, UAE reduces number of diplomats
Saudi Arabia, despite its repeated and flagrant violations of human rights both within and outside its borders, and despite the destabilization it has helped wrought, enjoys the protection of its Western allies. Saudi Arabia has long been the biggest market for Western arms exports, and in the process of its long and favored relations with the West, it has perfected the art of saying one thing to the West and another to its own people and adherents across the Muslim world. However, there is no confusion when it comes to its actions, which have charted a course of ever increasing belligerency and extremism.

When it comes to Iran, we are talking about a country that has been much maligned in the West for decades. It is painted as a rogue state and a threat to security and stability. Nobody forgets its inclusion in former US President George W Bush’s ‘axis of evil’ along with North Korea and Iraq. A sworn enemy of Israel and Saudi Arabia, Iran existed under a strict sanctions regimen for many years, and only recently was brought in from the cold by the Obama administration in the wake of diplomatic talks to end the impasse over Tehran’s nuclear program.

Obama’s peace overtures to the Iranians met with consternation in Tel Aviv and Riyadh. The nuclear deal caused a rupture in relations between Washington and its longstanding allies. Add to this the reluctance of Obama to commit to toppling Assad in Syria with sufficient force and never has an administration been regarded so poorly in the region as the Obama administration by the Israelis and the Saudis.

In truth, Iran has long been a pillar of stability in the Middle East. It has no territorial ambitions and its non-sectarianism is evidenced in its unwavering support for the overwhelmingly Sunni and long suffering Palestinians.

The region is in the throes of an ever deepening and intensifying crisis, triggered in the first instance by the disastrous US-led war of aggression on Iraq in 2003 and continued by the West’s role in helping to topple the Gaddafi government in Libya. There was a failure to adequately appreciate the threat posed by terrorism and extremism, both of which have proliferated as a consequence of the West’s actions since 9/11. Destroying the village in order to save it has been the strategy of governments, which have allowed regional allies such as Saudi Arabia to spread and propagate the poison of sectarianism and barbarism unchecked.

We are talking about people who as Oscar Wilde once quipped, “understand the price of everything and the value of nothing.” They are pushing the region into the most dangerous period it has experienced since the end of the Cold War.

Albert Camus says: “A man without ethics is a wild beast let loose upon this world.” The same sentiment can be applied to states and governments.

Step forward Saudi Arabia.


Satya_anveshi wrote:How Zionism helped create the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - by Nu'man Abd al-Wahid - Jan 07, 2016
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/zionism-kingdom-arabia

The covert alliance between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Zionist entity of Israel should be no surprise to any student of British imperialism. The problem is the study of British imperialism has very few students. Indeed, one can peruse any undergraduate or post-graduate British university prospectus and rarely find a module in a Politics degree on the British Empire let alone a dedicated degree or Masters degree. Of course if the European led imperialist carnage in the four years between 1914 – 1918 tickles your cerebral cells then it’s not too difficult to find an appropriate institutionto teach this subject, but if you would like to delve into how and why the British Empire waged war on mankind for almost four hundred years you’re practically on your own in this endeavour. One must admit, that from the British establishment’s perspective, this is a formidable and remarkable achievement.

In late 2014, according to the American journal, “Foreign Affairs”, the Saudi petroleum Minister, Ali al-Naimi is reported to have said “His Majesty King Abdullah has always been a model for good relations between Saudi Arabia and other states and the Jewish state is no exception.” Recently, Abdullah’s successor, King Salman expressed similar concerns to those of Israel’s to the growing agreement between the United States and Iran over the latter’s nuclear programme. This led some to report that Israel and KSA presented a “united front” in their opposition to the nuclear deal. This was not the first time the Zionists and Saudis have found themselves in the same corner in dealing with a perceived common foe. In North Yemen in the 1960’s, the Saudis were financing a British imperialist led mercenary army campaign against revolutionary republicans who had assumed authority after overthrowing the authoritarian, Imam. Gamal Abdul-Nasser’s Egypt militarily backed the republicans, while the British induced the Saudis to finance and arm the remaining remnants of the Imam’s supporters. Furthermore, the British organised the Israelis to drop arms for the British proxies in North Yemen, 14 times. The British, in effect, militarily but covertly, brought the Zionists and Saudis together in 1960’s North Yemen against their common foe.

However, one must go back to the 1920’s to fully appreciate the origins of this informal and indirect alliance between Saudi Arabia and the Zionist entity. The defeat of the Ottoman Empire by British imperialism in World War One, left three distinct authorities in the Arabian peninsula: Sharif of Hijaz: Hussain bin Ali of Hijaz (in the west), Ibn Rashid of Ha’il (in the north) and Emir Ibn Saud of Najd (in the east) and his religiously fanatical followers, the Wahhabis.

Ibn Saud had entered the war early in January 1915 on the side of the British, but was quickly defeated and his British handler, William Shakespear was killed by the Ottoman Empire’s ally Ibn Rashid. This defeat greatly hampered Ibn Saud’s utility to the Empire and left him militarily hamstrung for a year.[1] The Sharif contributed the most to the Ottoman Empire’s defeat by switching allegiances and leading the so-called ‘Arab Revolt’ in June 1916 which removed the Turkish presence from Arabia. He was convinced to totally alter his position because the British had strongly led him to believe, via correspondence with Henry McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, that a unified Arab country from Gaza to the Persian Gulf will be established with the defeat of the Turks. The letters exchanged between Sharif Hussain and Henry McMahon are known as the McMahon-Hussain Correspondence.

Understandably, the Sharif as soon as the war ended wanted to hold the British to their war time promises, or what he perceived to be their war time promises, as expressed in the aforementioned correspondence. The British, on the other hand, wanted the Sharif to accept the Empire’s new reality which was a division of the Arab world between them and the French (Sykes-Picot agreement) and the implementation of the Balfour Declaration, which guaranteed ‘a national for the Jewish people’ in Palestine by colonisation with European Jews. This new reality was contained in the British written, Anglo-Hijaz Treaty, which the Sharif was profoundly averse to signing.[2] After all, the revolt of 1916 against the Turks was dubbed the ‘Arab Revolt’ not the ‘Hijazi Revolt’.

Actually, the Sharif let it be known that he will never sell out Palestine to the Empire’s Balfour Declaration; he will never acquiescence to the establishment of Zionism in Palestine or accept the new random borders drawn across Arabia by British and French imperialists. For their part the British began referring to him as an ‘obstructionist’, a ‘nuisance’ and of having a ‘recalcitrant’ attitude.

The British let it be known to the Sharif that they were prepared to take drastic measures to bring about his approval of the new reality regardless of the service that he had rendered them during the War. After the Cairo Conference in March 1921, where the new Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill met with all the British operatives in the Middle East, T.E. Lawrence (i.e. of Arabia) was dispatched to meet the Sharif to bribe and bully him to accept Britain’s Zionist colonial project in Palestine. Initially, Lawrence and the Empire offered 80,000 rupees.[3] The Sharif rejected it outright. Lawrence then offered him an annual payment of £100,000.[4] The Sharif refused to compromise and sell Palestine to British Zionism.

When financial bribery failed to persuade the Sharif, Lawrence threatened him with an Ibn Saud takeover. Lawrence claimed that “politically and militarily, the survival of Hijaz as a viable independent Hashemite kingdom was wholly dependent on the political will of Britain, who had the means to protect and maintain his rule in the region.” [5] In between negotiating with the Sharif, Lawrence made the time to visit other leaders in the Arabian peninsula and informed them that they if they don’t tow the British line and avoid entering into an alliance with the Sharif, the Empire will unleash Ibn Saud and his Wahhabis who after all is at Britain’s ‘beck and call’.[6]

Simultaneously, after the Conference, Churchill travelled to Jerusalem and met with the Sharif’s son, Abdullah, who had been made the ruler, “Emir”, of a new territory called “Transjordan.” Churchill informed Abdullah that he should persuade “his father to accept the Palestine mandate and sign a treaty to such effect,” if not “the British would unleash Ibn Saud against Hijaz.”[7] In the meantime the British were planning to unleash Ibn Saud on the ruler of Ha’il, Ibn Rashid.

Ibn Rashid had rejected all overtures from the British Empire made to him via Ibn Saud, to be another of its puppets.[8] More so, Ibn Rashid expanded his territory north to the new mandated Palestinian border as well as to the borders of Iraq in the summer of 1920. The British became concerned that an alliance maybe brewing between Ibn Rashid who controlled the northern part of the peninsula and the Sharif who controlled the western part. More so, the Empire wanted the land routes between the Palestinian ports on the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf under the rule of a friendly party. At the Cairo Conference, Churchill agreed with an imperial officer, Sir Percy Cox that “Ibn Saud should be ‘given the opportunity to occupy Hail.’”[9] By the end of 1920, the British were showering Ibn Saud with “a monthly ‘grant’ of £10,000 in gold, on top of his monthly subsidy. He also received abundant arms supplies, totalling more than 10,000 rifles, in addition to the critical siege and four field guns” with British-Indian instructors.[10] Finally, in September 1921, the British unleashed Ibn Saud on Ha’il which officially surrendered in November 1921. It was after this victory the British bestowed a new title on Ibn Saud. He was no longer to be “Emir of Najd and Chief of its Tribes” but “Sultan of Najd and its Dependencies”. Ha’il had dissolved into a dependency of the Empire’s Sultan of Najd.

If the Empire thought that the Sharif, with Ibn Saud now on his border and armed to the teeth by the British, would finally become more amenable to the division of Arabia and the British Zionist colonial project in Palestine they were short lived. A new round of talks between Abdulla’s son, acting on behalf of his father in Transjordan and the Empire resulted in a draft treaty accepting Zionism. When it was delivered to the Sharif with an accompanying letter from his son requesting that he “accept reality”, he didn’t even bother to read the treaty and instead composed a draft treaty himself rejecting the new divisions of Arabia as well as the Balfour Declaration and sent it to London to be ratified![11]

Ever since 1919 the British had gradually decreased Hussain’s subsidy to the extent that by the early 1920’s they had suspended it, while at the same time continued subsidising Ibn Saud right through the early 1920’s.[12] After a further three rounds of negotiations in Amman and London, it dawned on the Empire that Hussain will never relinquish Palestine to Great Britain’s Zionist project or accept the new divisions in Arab lands.[13]In March 1923, the British informed Ibn Saud that it will cease his subsidy but not without awarding him an advance ‘grant’ of £50,000 upfront, which amounted to a year’s subsidy.[14]

In March 1924, a year after the British awarded the ‘grant’ to Ibn Saud, the Empire announced that it had terminated all discussions with Sharif Hussain to reach an agreement.[15] Within weeks the forces of Ibn Saud and his Wahhabi followers began to administer what the British foreign secretary, Lord Curzon called the “final kick” to Sharif Hussain and attacked Hijazi territory.[16] By September 1924, Ibn Saud had overrun the summer capital of Sharif Hussain, Ta’if. The Empire then wrote to Sharif’s sons, who had been awarded kingdoms in Iraq and Transjordan not to provide any assistance to their besieged father or in diplomatic terms they were informed “to give no countenance to interference in the Hedjaz”.[17] In Ta’if, Ibn Saud’s Wahhabis committed their customary massacres, slaughtering women and children as well as going into mosques and killing traditional Islamic scholars.[18] They captured the holiest place in Islam, Mecca, in mid-October 1924. Sharif Hussain was forced to abdicate and went to exile to the Hijazi port of Akaba. He was replaced as monarch by his son Ali who made Jeddah his governmental base. As Ibn Saud moved to lay siege to the rest of Hijaz, the British found the time to begin incorporating the northern Hijazi port of Akaba into Transjordan. Fearing that Sharif Hussain may use Akaba as a base to rally Arabs against the Empire’s Ibn Saud, the Empire let it be known that in no uncertain terms that he must leave Akaba or Ibn Saud will attack the port. For his part, Sharif Hussain responded that he had,

“never acknowledged the mandates on Arab countries and still protest against the British Government which has made Palestine a national home for the Jews.”[19]

Sharif Hussain was forced out of Akaba, a port he had liberated from the Ottoman Empire during the ‘Arab Revolt’, on the 18th June 1925 on HMS Cornflower.

Ibn Saud had begun his siege of Jeddah in January 1925 and the city finally surrendered in December 1925 bringing to an end over 1000 years of rule by the Prophet Muhammad’s descendants. The British officially recognised Ibn Saud as the new King of Hijaz in February 1926 with other European powers following suit within weeks. The new unified Wahhabi state was rebranded by the Empire in 1932 as the “Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” (KSA). A certain George Rendel, an officer working at the Middle East desk at the Foreign Office in London, claimed credit for the new name.

On the propaganda level, the British served the Wahhabi takeover of Hijaz on three fronts. Firstly, they portrayed and argued that Ibn Saud’s invasion of Hijaz was motivated by religious fanaticism rather than by British imperialism’s geo-political considerations.[20] This deception is propounded to this day, most recently in Adam Curtis’s acclaimed BBC “Bitter Lake” documentary, whereby he states that the “fierce intolerant vision of wahhabism” drove the “beduins” to create Saudi Arabia.[21] Secondly, the British portrayed Ibn Saud’s Wahhabi fanatics as a benign and misunderstood force who only wanted to bring Islam back to its purest form.[22] To this day, these Islamist jihadis are portrayed in the most benign manner when their armed insurrections is supported by Britain and the West such as 1980’s Afghanistan or in today’s Syria, where they are referred to in the western media as “moderate rebels.” Thirdly, British historians portray Ibn Saud as an independent force and not as a British instrument used to horn away anyone perceived to be surplus to imperial requirements. For example, Professor Eugene Rogan’s recent study on the history on Arabs claims that “Ibn Saud had no interest in fighting” the Ottoman Empire. This is far from accurate as Ibn Saud joined the war in 1915. He further disingenuously claims that Ibn Saud was only interested in advancing “his own objectives” which fortuitously always dovetailed with those of the British Empire.[23]

In conclusion, one of the most overlooked aspects of the Balfour Declaration is the British Empire’s commitment to “use their best endeavours to facilitate” the creation of “a national home for the Jewish people”. Obviously, many nations in the world today were created by the Empire but what makes Saudi Arabia’s borders distinctive is that its northern and north-eastern borders are the product of the Empire facilitating the creation of Israel. At the very least the dissolution of the two Arab sheikhdoms of Ha’il and Hijaz by Ibn Saud’s Wahhabis is based in their leaders’ rejection to facilitate the British Empire’s Zionist project in Palestine.

Therefore, it is very clear that the British Empire’s drive to impose Zionism in Palestine is embedded in the geographical DNA of contemporary Saudi Arabia. There is further irony in the fact that the two holiest sites in Islam are today governed by the Saudi clan and Wahhabi teachings because the Empire was laying the foundations for Zionism in Palestine in the 1920s. Contemporaneously, it is no surprise that both Israel and Saudi Arabia are keen in militarily intervening on the side of “moderate rebels” i.e. jihadis, in the current war on Syria, a country which covertly and overtly rejects the Zionist colonisation of Palestine.

As the United States, the ‘successor’ to the British Empire in defending western interests in the Middle East, is perceived to be growing more hesitant in engaging militarily in the Middle East, there is an inevitability that the two nations rooted in the Empire’s Balfour Declaration, Israel and Saudi Arabia, would develop a more overt alliance to defend their common interests.


Philip wrote:No better b*sturds than the British! They are exceptional in their chicanery and deceit.Delivered with aplomb and a "straight (curved) bat",cricket and all that ,what?

The British hoped to create two new states,one Jewish and the other Muslim who would hold the balance of power in the ME,and be eternally grateful and subservient to them. Later on,post WW2,when the Brits were run ragged after the war, the Yanquis established commercial partnerships with the Saudis in particular,the Bush family and Bin Laden family.The House of Saud and House of Bush cemented an unholy carnal and lascivious relationship that still has its effect on the region. Anyone standing in their way,Brits and Yanquis,will be exterminated as Saddam,Ghadaffi,Mubarak,Mossadegh and others have found out.Assad has been on the hit list for a long time,but a dark horse may be one Erdo-Gun, the Sultan of the neo-Ottomans,a little bird tells me. He has been disastrous with his independent attitude ,Islamic fundamentalism ,bum-chumming with ISIS,and his megalomania isn't in favour with the palefaces at this point of time.In fact,his cretinous actions have allowed the Russians to plant themselves inside Syria ,where they are putting down deep roots to protect their strategic interests.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47887
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby ramana » 08 Jan 2016 23:26

Despite all the above, KSA under King Salman is new entitiy.

By dismissing the old Ibn Saud line of succession which the previous Crown Prince represents, and appointing his own nephew as CP and own son as Dy CP and Defense Minister he has created a new dynastic line. This supersedes or sets aside ~2000 other Princes of various pecking order.

Ibn Saud had 43 sons and many daughters. However the dynasty is the preserve of the Suderi line. Suderi is the the daughter of the Wahabi mullah who supported Ibn Saud when he was only the Chief of Nejd.

How many of the original seven (7) Suderies are still alive?

Next point the Shiite revolution, Arab Spring, , all people rights color revolution all spring from modernism where people are overthrowing minority rulers and seeking majority rule..
We see this all over the world End of Apartheid, Collapse of Soviet Union, German reunification, rise of Iraqi Shia state etc.

So the Shia protest in Arab lands should be seen in context. The boundaries are Sykes-Picot and nothing to do with Ottoman collapse.

We had Arab-Israel(state vs. state), Arab-Persian/Iran(people) now Sunni-Shia.
In other words state vs. state confrontations gave way to people vs. people to now religious cult vs. religious cult.
its getting bigger. Why?
Its demographics and more importantly resources.
The smaller agglomerations were not sufficient. Hence its getting bigger and bigger.
To what purpose.

Islam rises in the vacuum created between exhausted states.
And with a patron.

Right now West led by US is getting exhausted and Soviet Russia based system has collapsed.

This Sunni coalition could overcome the Persians and occupy West Asia.
This is what happened in 630 AD.
Bothe Byzantium and Sassnians exhausted themselves. And Islam filled the breach.
India could not support any side then and got subject to Islam horde once Sunni power consolidated in West Asia.

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3528
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby Satya_anveshi » 08 Jan 2016 23:47

Saudi Arabia and Israel are joined at the hips.

I see Israel having carte blanch within Indian security apparatus and therefore has extremely deep influence. By proxy, the same is also exercised by Saudi Arabia in addition to having disproportionate influence in internal matters via its funding of wahabi forces, madrassas in India, and due to large number of expats working in Saudi Arabia and its 'indistinguishable from self' allies (UAE, Qatar etc).

This comes at a cost of alienating Iran to an extent with considerable scope of confusion around who started first, Iranians aiding Puki Nukes as indicated by late Shri K Subramanyam ji vs Iranian fears of India getting too close with Israeli security apparatus.

What all this points to is that our both feet are firmly in the camp of proxies for status quo powers (US/UK) even though our head wants to get out of colonial or balance of power shackles imposed on us via Pak, which is also backed by the same players and powers.

There are no indications that , at strategic level, we realize this inherent confusion and contradiction and therefore also do not see a strategic counter to it.

It seems that we confuse getting by day-to-day affairs without disturbing anyone is a 'strategic' win in itself. In essence 'chalta hai' attitude or in hyd style 'chalne do balkishan.'
Last edited by Satya_anveshi on 09 Jan 2016 00:01, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47887
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby ramana » 08 Jan 2016 23:54

{quote="Falijee"}

Saudi Arabia cuts its own throat
For decades, Saudi Arabia has ruled its people with an iron fist.

But that grip may have loosened just a little after the latest protests in its eastern provinces over the execution of Nimr al-Nimr, a prominent cleric who demanded rights for the kingdom’s Shia minority.
The country’s autocratic rulers deem protests as a form of sedition.
In this overwhelmingly Wahhabi Sunni nation -- where the state religion determines so many aspects of people’s lives, from what one says in public, to who can vote and build places of worship -- protests like these are almost unheard of.

They signal a deep-rooted mistrust of the Saudi establishment. Unrest may ultimately re-surface to create real schisms.
The Shiite cleric was beheaded along with a few dozen al-Qaida operatives.
A state cleric characterized the executions as a mercy to the deceased.
Al-Nimr would have preferred to live.
He would have preferred to see a far more equitable Saudi Arabia emerge, with the rights of minorities enshrined in the constitution, as they are in the charters of civilized nations.
But the Wahhabi kingdom is governed according to a medieval world view that holds the state to be synonymous with its long-standing, dictatorial monarchy.
This archaic system condemns any protests against its policies as treason.
Saudi Arabia has no legal political parties with platforms that can be promoted

And to top it, it uses "money diplomacy" to get itself elected to an United Nations Human Rights (!) Organization
Its constitution consists largely of the Qur’an and practices of the prophet Mohammad.

In this day and age of science !
The current unrest is a sign Saudi Arabia has failed to produce modern political institutions that allow for political accountability.
The monarchy of the House of Saud, established in 1932, continues to oppress and persecute women, minorities and foreign workers.
Ironically it is in the Shia provinces that oil, the kingdom’s main source of revenue, is found in abundance.
Al-Nimr demanded equality for the Shia community and the democratic reform of Saudi general elections.
He also said if Shia rights were not going to be respected, the eastern province should secede.

These executions do not bode well for Saudi Arabia in the long run.
The restlessness of the Shia minority is only part of the problem.
Its oil revenues continue to decline and its meddling in Yemen is costly.
The executions violated human rights, but they also drew the world’s attention to what the stagnant Saudi regime values, and that may be the most damaging thing in the long term.
Saudi Arabia cannot ignore the disapproval of the outside world forever.


{/quote}

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47887
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby ramana » 09 Jan 2016 01:15

X-post...
The Saudi - Conundrum :mrgreen:
Good analysis by Hajam Sethi

The House of Saud is flexing its muscle in the Middle East and beyond. After the installation of a pro-US Shi’ite regime in Iraq in 2003, it extended support to the Sunni opposition led by Al Qaeda’s Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Following the Arab spring in 2011-12, it intervened aggressively in Syria by supporting extremist Sunni forces against the Baathist regime. Last year, it went into Yemen all guns blazing against the Shi’ite Houthis. Last week it executed Nimr-al-Nimr, a Shi’ite cleric in its eastern oil rich Shi’ite province for demanding greater rights. Now it has severed diplomatic relations with Iran for protesting Nimr’s execution. Saudi Arabia has cobbled a 34 nation Sunni alliance against Shi’ite “terrorism” and is pressurising Islamabad for material support. How should Pakistan respond? Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran were once, like Pakistan, US-partners in the cold war against Soviet communism. But after the Iranian revolution in 1979, they became sworn enemies when the Saudis backed Saddam Hussain’s war with Iran for a decade in the 1980s. Pakistan wisely stayed out of the conflict, but Iran was cool, suspecting Islamabad of being a Trojan horse for the Saudi-American conspiracy to overthrow the Iranian regime. In 1987, there were riots during Hajj in which over 400 Shi’ite Iranians were killed, provoking Iranian mobs to attack the Saudi embassy in Teheran and compelling the Saudis to cut diplomatic relations with Iran after it began to threaten the oil lanes in the Gulf. Relations improved for a while under the moderate Iranian regime of President Rohani in the 2000s but nosedived again following reports of Iranian attempts to build a nuclear bomb. The Saudis then went so far as to encourage the US and Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear installations even as the international community was desperately trying to avoid inflaming the Middle East by negotiating a nuclear freeze with Teheran. Hajj riots in 2015 in which over 2000 people were killed, including over 400 Iranians, strained relations once again. Why is Saudi Arabia so anti-Shia? The problem lies at home. The oil rich eastern seaboard provinces of Saudi Arabia are overwhelmingly Shi’ite. Since the Iranian revolution they have been emboldened to demand greater freedom and economic rights from the House of Saud. Instead of pacifying them, the House of Saud has chosen to opt for repression at home and military dominance and intervention in the region against Shi’ites. It has also unleashed its extremist Wahhabi clergy and ideology against Shi’ism all over the world. In short, the House of Saud has irrevocably embarked on a strategy to fuel a sectarian war in the region and beyond. Until now, the Saudi influence in Pakistan has been limited to funneling money to extremist Sunni mullahs, mosques and non-state actors/groups. The jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan was exclusively led by Sunni groups and parties. The Saudis were active partners with Pakistan in recognizing the Sunni Taliban regime in 1997 and only backed off when the Taliban openly lent support to Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda that was hostile to the Faustian bargain between the House of Saud and the USA – oil for Sunni-Wahhabi ideology. The backlash of these policies manifested itself in the rise of anti-Shia militias and Lashkars in Pakistan which eventually extended their tentacles and alliances into the domain of Al Qaeda, Taliban and now ISIS. This has created a potentially volatile situation in Pakistan. The government of Nawaz Sharif has been prodded by the military under General Raheel Sharif to unfurl a National Action Plan to combat all forms of terrorism, including sectarianism, that pose an existential threat to state and society. According to General Sharif, sectarian-IS poses the greatest danger to Pakistan and the military will not allow it to take root. :?: Therefore the military is encouraging the PMLN government to resort to extra judicial measures to degrade and eliminate the sectarian Lashkars. It is in this context of its geo-strategic sectarian agenda that any Pakistani alliance or cooperation with the House of Saud must be seen. The Sharif government has wisely stayed out of the conflict in Yemen despite Saudi pressure because it was able to hold a debate in parliament that demonstrated a national consensus against any such interventionism that could lead to terrible sectarian backlash at home. Now it is on the horns of another dilemma when faced with the challenge of reconciling its long-term friendship and economic interests in Saudi Arabia with the grim prospects of dealing with the sectarian challenge at home that is bound to get a fillip if Pakistan enters the anti-Shia alliance brokered by the Saudis. Pakistan must not get embroiled in the sectarian wars of the Middle-East. We are already facing problems on both borders with India and Afghanistan. Extreme Sunni ideologies are undermining our state and society. It is time to look inward and consolidate our gains in the war against extremism instead of renting ourselves out again to foreign powers for short term material gains. - See more at: http://www.thefridaytimes.com/tft/the-s ... NlgQY.dpuf

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47887
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby ramana » 09 Jan 2016 01:22

In 1987, KSA wanted TSP to send its troops already stationed there to the Iraqi frontlines to face off the Iranian RG armies. The TSP refused and brought their troops back.
So when faced with confronting Iran forces TSP backs down.

partha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3849
Joined: 02 Jul 2010 15:25

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby partha » 09 Jan 2016 02:31

There were rumors floating around in social media that the recently downed Bahraini F16 jet was piloted by a Paki.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47887
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby ramana » 17 Jan 2016 04:49

X_pos....

quote="deejay"

Saudi succession plans in place?

http://www.gulfinstitute.org/exclusive-saudi-king-to-abdicate-to-son-2/

Image

Exclusive: Saudi King to Abdicate to Son
Posted by Gulf Institute on January 13, 2016 in News, Saudi Arabia | 3214 Views | 1 Response
January 13, 2016
By Ali AlAhmed
Washington DC – Saudi King Salman Al-Saud plans to abdicate his throne and install his son Mohammed as king, multiple highly-placed sources told the Institute for Gulf Affairs.

Mohamed bin Salman is the current deputy crown prince, second in-line to the throne, and defense minister.
King Salman, 80, has been making the rounds visiting his brothers seeking support for the move that will also remove the current crown prince and American favorite, the hardline Mohammed bin Naif from his positions as the crown prince and the minister of interior.


According to sources familiar with the proceedings, Salman told his brothers that the stability of the Saudi monarchy requires a change of the succession from lateral or diagonal lines to a vertical order under which the king hands power to his most eligible son.

Since the establishment of Saudi Arabia as an absolute monarchy in 1932, the throne was handed down from the founder King AdbulAziaz to his son Saud, then to his brothers Faisal, Khald, Fahd, Abdullah, then Salman, who became king on January 23, 2015. Salman is the last son of King AbdulAziz AlSaud to rule as king of Saudi Arabia. AbdulAziz is the only man in history who served as king and fathered six kings.

The current arrangement is that the throne will go to the nephew of King Salman, interior minister Mohamed bin Naif, who has been slowly marginalized by his younger cousin and the king’s son, Mohamed bin Salman.

The sources said the king referred to the Jordanian monarchy that changed its succession order to eliminate transfer of power between brothers and moved it to a vertical succession order. Bin Naif has two daughters and no male children due to his purported cocaine habit which affected his fertility. Mohamed bin Salman has two daughters and two sons, Salman and Mashoor.

In April 29, 2015, King Salman removed his half-brother Muqrin from his position as crown prince 94 days after his appointment, and replaced him with his nephew Mohamed bin Naif. {Non Suderi?}The change in succession order at this time seems to be characteristic of King Salman’s many brash decisions during his first year of rule including waging war on Yemen, shrinking the budget, mass executions of dozens including Shia religious leader and dissident Sheikh Nimer AlNimer for political activities earlier this month, and starting a spat with Iran.

Salman would be the first Saudi king who willingly abdicates and see his own son as king. He would most likely be referred to as father king. A similar move was taken by the former Qatari ruler Hamed bin Khalifah AlThani who abdicated in 2013 and install his son Tamim in his place.

Salman plans to abdicate and install his son as king while he is still alive to guarantee his offspring would not be marginalized and driven out of power like all the sons of former Saudi kings who lost power and influence after the death of their fathers. The sons of Kings Abdullah, Fahd, Khalid and Saud all lost most of their positions and were relegated to lesser posts, such as provincial governors, after their father kings have passed away.

The sources did not give a specific time line for the abdication but believed the matter will be concluded within a matter of weeks. The sources said that the king is spending hundreds of millions to buy support for his decision within the ruling family.

Adam Whitcomb contributed to this report.




Looks like King Salman wants preempt Crown Prince Muqrin from succeeding him.

Muqrin looks like Non-Suderi? If so how was he appointed Crown Prince? Maybe to enable palace coup by Salman to remove Abdullah?

Also look at string of disaters that happened under Salman.

Salman looks unwise despite his name after King Solomon the Wise.

member_29294
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby member_29294 » 17 Jan 2016 07:34

With any luck, there will be a succession war.

India needs to distance itself as far away as possible from Saudi Arabia and Israel. They are no good for India apart from oil and weapons. When push comes to shove they will be non-committal in support for India against Paki, and will dance to the tune of Amerikhan.

Iran is the logical and best mutual ally in West Asia. They are desperate for support against the Sunnis, and their breed of Islam won't be funding any madrasas in India. They are a gateway into Afghanistan and Baluch, which could be vital against any conflicts against the Pakis, and incredibly rich in oil and natural gas that could be piped into India bypassing Paki entirely.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby Paul » 17 Jan 2016 08:12

Iran is very restrained in its rhetoric against the sunnis. The sunnis on other hand call them mushrik.

Since the days of Khomeini, it is Shia policy to collaborate with Sunnis who are interested in accepting Shia support as exemplified by collaboration with sunni tribes against the Daesh or Iran pasdaran supporting terrorists in Sudan. Hekmatyar finding shelter in Iran etc. I could go on and on.

Hence it is not right to call this a Shia Sunni conflict per se

member_29294
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby member_29294 » 17 Jan 2016 09:14

Paul wrote:Iran is very restrained in its rhetoric against the sunnis. The sunnis on other hand call them mushrik.

Since the days of Khomeini, it is Shia policy to collaborate with Sunnis who are interested in accepting Shia support as exemplified by collaboration with sunni tribes against the Daesh or Iran pasdaran supporting terrorists in Sudan. Hekmatyar finding shelter in Iran etc. I could go on and on.

Hence it is not right to call this a Shia Sunni conflict per se


Read about the policy of Taqqiya.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya

It very much is a Shia-Sunni conflict with a good mix of Tribalism thrown in. The enemy of Israel used to bring the two together, but now with SA in bed with Israel the mix has turned quite a bit. SA is now almost solely concerned about trying to defeat the Shia boogeyman to the point of actively funding ISIS and other Sunni radicals along with creating an anti-Shia alliance military alliance.

Given the situation in the ME, Obama actually seems to be trying to reorient and reset relations with Iran while distancing themselves away from SA. The reasons for this are multifold and include the end of the Oil hegemony of OPEC and the rise of US shale, as well as general US dissatisfaction about SA influence being a major destabilization factor in the region and exporter of terror. US willingly allowed Iraq to be controlled by its Shia majority again, despite SA protests, and also ended nearly all sanctions against Iran despite Israel protests. US seems to want to return to a more even balance of power across the region, with no one getting Nukes.


arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9194
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby arun » 16 Apr 2016 09:08

X Posted from the “Indian Foreign Policy” thread.

Excerpt from the final communique of the OIC meet dealing with Jammu & Kashmir shows yet another misstep regards the Islamic Republic of Pakistan by the BJP led Government of our Prime Minister Narendra Modi:

FINAL COMMUNIQUE OF THE 13TH ISLAMIC SUMMIT OF THE HEADS OF STATE/GOVERNMENT OF THE OIC MEMBER STATES

Date: 15/04/2016

21. The Conference reaffirmed its principled support forthe people of Jammu and Kashmir for the realization of their legitimate right to self-determination, in accordance with relevant UN resolutions and aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. It further reaffirmed that Jammu and Kashmir is the core dispute between Pakistan and India and its resolution is indispensable for bringing peace in South Asia.

22. The Conference called on India to implement numerous UN resolutions on Kashmir which declare that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir would be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. It further reminded the international community of its obligation to ensure implementation of UN resolutions on Kashmir and fulfill the promise made with the people of Jammu and Kashmir 68 year ago.

23. The Conference affirmed its support to the wide-spread indigenous movement of the people of the Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IOK) for their right to self-determination. It urged that freedom struggle must not be equated with terrorism.

24. The Conference expressed concern at the indiscriminate use of force and gross violations of human rights committed in IOK by Indian security forces which have resulted in killing thousands of innocent and unarmed civilians as well as injuring hundreds of others including women, children and elderly, most recently the killing of a 22 year old woman, Ms. Shaista Hameed in Pulwama on 14 February 2016.

25. The Conference welcomed the establishment of a standing mechanism by the OIC Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission (IPHRC) for monitoring the human rights situation in the Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. The Conference called upon India to allow the OIC Fact Finding Mission and the international human rights groups and humanitarian organizations to visit IOK. The Conference endorsed the recommendations of the OIC Contact Group on Jammu and Kashmir. It took note of the Memorandum presented by the True Representatives of the Kashmiri People to the Contact Group at its recent meeting.

26. The Conference called on the Islamic Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO) and the Research Center for Islamic History, Art and Culture (IRCICA) to undertake activities to protect holy sites in Kashmir and preserve cultural rights and Islamic heritage. The Conference appealed to the Member States and Muslim institutions to grant scholarships to the Kashmiri students in deferent universities and institutions in OIC countries.



OIC declaration on Jammu & Kashmir proves former Ambassador M.K.Bhadra Kumar was right when he dismissed the agreement on terrorism between India and Saudi Arabia concluded earlier this month as being about Iran rather than the Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s and BJP Party’s spin that it targeted the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Very disappointing that the Saudi’s have certainly befooled our Prime Minister at the minimal cost of granting a civilian award. Then off course there is the separate but related matter of the counter-terrorism agreement with the UAE which once again was touted as a major success against the Islamic Republic of Pakistan:

A second outcome of Modi’s Saudi visit, duly highlighted by our spin doctors, is that the two countries are entering an unprecedented level of cooperation and coordination in the security field in the fight against terrorism. The joint statement devoted four paragraphs to it.

However, a dark cloud has appeared on the horizon in no time, with a Saudi official claiming that they read the joint statement largely as aimed at Iran, which, they believe is fostering terrorism in the region. Of course, our security czars had assumed that Modi brilliantly secured Saudi Arabia’s support in controlling Pakistani state sponsorship of terrorism.

In fact, the Pakistani coverage of Modi’s Saudi visit confirms an impression that Salman may have used Modi’s shoulder to take a pot-shot at the Iranians. Perhaps, that explains why Salman felt so obliged to Modi as to confer the Abdulaziz Sash, our PM’s controversial reputation on the Arab Street as the “butcher of Gujarat” notwithstanding.

Unsurprisingly, adrenaline began flowing in the Saudi veins and they have since imposed new measures against Iran by closing the Saudi air space to Iranian civilian flights and prohibiting tankers carrying Iranian crude from transiting Saudi waters (external links here and here).


Salman probably concluded that with Modi on his side, Iran’s regional “isolation” is now complete. Indeed, the Saudis have offered to Modi that they can replace Iran as India’s key energy partner in the region. They are paranoid about the prospect of an imminent reset of India-Iran ties.

Rediff

Ashok Sarraff
BRFite
Posts: 616
Joined: 06 Oct 2007 00:44

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby Ashok Sarraff » 16 Apr 2016 15:34

Saudi Arabia Warns of Economic Fallout if Congress Passes 9/11 Bill

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/world ... -bill.html

Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, delivered the kingdom’s message personally last month during a trip to Washington, telling lawmakers that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts.


Melwyn

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby Melwyn » 21 Apr 2016 05:28

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-senior ... ast-2016-3

Have been watching US media coverage of Saudi Arabia with some interest.

First came the 9/11 report, pretty much blaming the Saudi government of collusion with the Jihadis.
Then Obama calling the Saudis "free riders" and American "experts" openly calling Saudis the fountainhead of Wahabi terrorism and exporter of terror ideology.
Reports of Saudis poor human rights record suddenly being played repeatedly.

Obama visited Saudi Barbaria today (20th April) and the Saudi King even refused to acknowledge him, complete chill.

It seems like the Saudis goose is cooked:

* With US no longer dependent on Saudi oil, their usefulness has eroded substantially. Oil glut has made Saudis much less richer.
* By making peace with Iran, US has drastically reduced their foreign policy friction in the region.
* Also, by toppling Saddam (Sunni) the power in Iraq has passed on to the Shias. This makes Iran a very potent force in ME. Russia/China stood by Syrian government thus blunting all the Saudi/USA efforts to expand their influence.
* ME is such a messed up place that nothing can get them out this mess for generations. Idiots are at each others throats with no end in sight. The entire regions has started to look like the pre-Islamic Arabia with tribes fighting with each other.

And with more report of Saudis going bankrupt in a few years if the current oil prices hold, they are as dead as dodo.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12492
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby Lalmohan » 21 Apr 2016 16:50

i say again, unkil and tsar putinovich are taking the haus of saud daun...
its all agreed before haath

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15812
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby NRao » 08 May 2016 06:32

There is going to be vacuum in SA. India can and needs to fill it.

BTW, SA king restructured his "cabinet"because he has a new economic vision - one in which India should participate.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12492
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby Lalmohan » 10 May 2016 16:56

if india doesn't buy the oil, the saudi-i-goose is cooked
china alone won't be able to buy it all

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15812
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby NRao » 10 May 2016 18:19

It is more than "oil". SA wants to diversify - India can help. The US seems uninterested - India can help. India could play the Iran-SA game to Indian benefits. And, who knows reduce Paki influence in SA too?

I see a good opp for India to play a positive role in SA. A win-win.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby Agnimitra » 11 May 2016 00:18

Paul wrote:Iran is very restrained in its rhetoric against the sunnis. The sunnis on other hand call them mushrik.

Since the days of Khomeini, it is Shia policy to collaborate with Sunnis who are interested in accepting Shia support as exemplified by collaboration with sunni tribes against the Daesh or Iran pasdaran supporting terrorists in Sudan. Hekmatyar finding shelter in Iran etc. I could go on and on.

Hence it is not right to call this a Shia Sunni conflict per se

Iran is restrained in its rhetoric against Sunnis because:

1. In terms of its soft power projection, a lot of the Iranosphere is non-Shi'a, even though Iranic-language-speaking. That includes Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Kurdistan, Ossetia (Christian), large sections of Persophile Ashrafs in Pakistan-India, Turkish Naqshbandi Sufis, etc.

2. Khomeini's Shi'ism is a product of an anti-Shi'a clergy manthan with people like Ahmad Kasravi and others, who denounced "Shi'igari" and "Sufigari". They wanted Iranian Islam to become less hidebound, and in a sense more like Sunni social organization.

3. Khomeini's Shi'ism moved closer to Sunnis, and Turkish Islamist Fethullah Gulen's Sunni revival drew much closer to Shi'ism, taking direction from Said Nursi. They have even adopted Shi'a prayers and some practices.

Iranian Shi'ism and Turkish Sunni Islam have already prepared the stage for a merger in future - though there will be serious jockeying for who is top dog.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12492
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby Lalmohan » 11 May 2016 02:18

NRao wrote:It is more than "oil". SA wants to diversify - India can help. The US seems uninterested - India can help. India could play the Iran-SA game to Indian benefits. And, who knows reduce Paki influence in SA too?

I see a good opp for India to play a positive role in SA. A win-win.


diversification is easier to say than do
they have been saying it for 20 years
so far only camel droppings

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47887
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby ramana » 11 May 2016 02:42


Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12492
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby Lalmohan » 11 May 2016 16:59

ramana wrote:Lalmohan,

viewtopic.php?p=1996126#p1996126


no sir, i don't
sorry

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47887
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby ramana » 12 May 2016 23:08

Ok.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21699
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby SSridhar » 07 Jan 2017 15:27

Saudi Arabia's dream of becoming dominant Muslim power in world has gone down in flames - Patrick Cockburn, The Independent
As recently as two years ago, Saudi Arabia's half century-long effort to establish itself as the main power among Arab and Islamic states looked as if it was succeeding. A US state department paper sent by former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, in 2014 and published by Wikileaks spoke of the Saudis and Qataris as rivals competing "to dominate the Sunni world".

A year later in December 2015, the German foreign intelligence service BND was so worried about the growing influence of Saudi Arabia that it took the extraordinary step of producing a memo, saying that "the previous cautious diplomatic stance of older leading members of the royal family is being replaced by an impulsive policy of intervention".

An embarrassed German government forced the BND to recant, but over the last year its fears about the destabilising impact of more aggressive Saudi policies were more than fulfilled. What it did not foresee was the speed with which Saudi Arabia would see its high ambitions defeated or frustrated on almost every front. But in the last year Saudi Arabia has seen its allies in Syrian civil war lose their last big urban centre+ in east Aleppo. Here, at least, Saudi intervention was indirect but in Yemen direct engagement of the vastly expensive Saudi military machine has failed to produce a victory. Instead of Iranian influence being curtailed by a more energetic Saudi policy, the exact opposite has happened. In the last OPEC meeting, the Saudis agreed to cut crude production while Iran raised output, something Riyadh had said it would always reject .


In the US, the final guarantor of the continued rule of the House of Saud, President Obama allowed himself to be quoted as complaining about the convention in Washington of treating Saudi Arabia as a friend and ally. At a popular level, there is growing hostility to Saudi Arabia reflected in the near unanimous vote in Congress to allow families of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government as bearing responsibility for the attack.
Under the mercurial guidance of Deputy Crown Prince and defence minister Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the most powerful figure in Saudi decision making, Saudi foreign policy became more militaristic and nationalistic after his 80 year old father Salman became king on 23 January 2015. Saudi military intervention in Yemen followed, as did increased Saudi assistance to a rebel alliance in Syria in which the most powerful fighting force was Jabhat al-Nusra, formerly the Syrian affiliate of al-Qaida.

Nothing has gone well for the Saudis in Yemen and Syria. The Saudis apparently expected the Houthis to be defeated swiftly by pro-Saudi forces, but after fifteen months of bombing they and their ally, former President Saleh, still hold the capital Sanaa and northern Yemen. The prolonged bombardment of the Arab world's poorest country by the richest has produced a humanitarian catastrophe in which at least 60 per cent of the 25 million Yemeni population do not get enough to eat or drink.

The enhanced Saudi involvement in Syria in 2015 on the side of the insurgents had similarly damaging and unexpected consequences. The Saudis had succeeded Qatar as the main Arab supporter of the Syrian insurgency in 2013 in the belief that their Syrian allies could defeat President Bashar al-Assad or lure the US into doing so for them. In the event, greater military pressure on Assad served only to make him seek more help from Russia and Iran and precipitated Russian military intervention in September 2015 which the US was not prepared to oppose.

Prince Mohammed bin Salman is being blamed inside and outside the Kingdom for impulsive misjudgments that have brought failure or stalemate. On the economic front, his Vision 2030 project whereby Saudi Arabia is to become less wholly dependent on oil revenues and more like a normal non-oil state attracted scepticism mixed with derision from the beginning. It is doubtful if there will be much change in the patronage system whereby a high proportion of oil revenues are spent on employing Saudis regardless of their qualifications or willingness to work.

Protests by Saudi Arabia's ten million-strong foreign work force, a third of the 30 million population, because they have not been paid can be ignored or crushed by floggings and imprisonment. The security of the Saudi state is not threatened.


The danger for the rulers of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other Gulf states is rather that hubris and wishful thinking have tempted them to try to do things well beyond their strength. None of this is new and the Gulf oil states have been increasing their power in the Arab and Muslim worlds since the nationalist regimes in Egypt, Syria and Jordan were defeated by Israel in 1967. They found — and Saudi Arabia is now finding the same thing — that militaristic nationalism works well to foster support for rulers under pressure so long as they can promise victory, but delegitimises them when they suffered defeat.

Previously Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states had worked through allies and proxies but this restraint ended with the popular uprisings of 2011. Qatar and later Saudi Arabia shifted towards supporting regime change. Revolutions transmuted into counter-revolutions with a strong sectarian cutting edge in countries like Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain where there were Sunni and non-Sunni populations.

Critics of Saudi and Qatari policies often demonise them as cunning and effective, but their most striking characteristic is their extreme messiness and ignorance of real conditions on the ground. In 2011, Qatar believed that Assad could be quickly driven from power just like Muamar Gaddafi in Libya. When this did not happen they pumped in money and weapons willy-nilly while hoping that the US could be persuaded to intervene militarily to overthrow Assad as Nato had done in Libya.

Experts on in Syria argue about the extent to which the Saudis and the Qataris knowingly funded Islamic State and various al-Qaida clones. The answer seems to be that they did not know, and often did not care, exactly who they were funding and that, in any case, it often came from wealthy individuals and not from the Saudi government or intelligence services.

The mechanism whereby Saudi money finances extreme jihadi groups was explained in an article by Carlotta Gall in the New York Times in December on how the Saudis had bankrolled the Taliban after their defeat in 2001. The article cites the former Taliban Finance Minister, Agha Jan Motasim, as explaining in an interview how he would travel to Saudi Arabia to raise large sums of money from private individuals which was then covertly transferred to Afghanistan. Afghan officials are quoted as saying that a recent offensive by 40,000 Taliban cost foreign donors $1 billion.
The attempt by Saudi Arabia and Gulf oil states to achieve hegemony in the Arab and Sunni Muslim worlds has proved disastrous for almost everybody. The capture of east Aleppo by the Syrian Army and the likely fall of Mosul to the Iraqi Army means defeat for that the Sunni Arabs in a great swathe of territory stretching from Iran to the Mediterranean.
Largely thanks to their Gulf benefactors, they are facing permanent subjection to hostile governments.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47887
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby ramana » 15 Aug 2017 20:45

Looks like Saudi royal family is going through a purge after the new guy took over.
BBC reports on 15 August 2017, dissident princes have been kidnapped or lured back and have gone missing from European towns.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 882
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby Manish_P » 07 Nov 2017 11:54

Purging moving into higher gear ?

Saudi Arabia arrests: Corruption drive 'just the start'

The arrest of dozens of Saudi royal figures, ministers and businessmen is just the start of an anti-corruption drive, the attorney general says.

Sheikh Saud Al Mojeb issued a statement describing the detentions as "merely the start of a vital process to root out corruption wherever it exists".

News of a major purge of Saudi Arabia's business and political leadership emerged on Sunday.

It is seen as bolstering the power of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

An anti-corruption body led by the crown prince, 32, ordered the detentions of 11 princes, four ministers and dozens of ex-ministers. Internationally known billionaire businessman Al-Waleed bin Talal was reported to be among those held.

US President Donald Trump backed the move by the Saudi authorities.

"I have great confidence in King Salman and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, they know exactly what they are doing," he tweeted.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21699
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby SSridhar » 07 Nov 2017 13:29

I would say that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is lurching towards instability.

King Salman bin Abdulaziz al Saud is suffering from dementia and has practically abdicated his position to his 'favourite' youngest son, Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz al Saud (MBS). So, all decisions are being taken by the impulsive MBS. He has already launched KSA into a disastrous war with Yemen. The Houthis were able to send a missile over a 1000 Kms to Riyadh, reminiscent (though not on the same scale as Saddam Hussein) of the 1989 attacks by Iraq. He has further piqued the Qataris and the Iranians, with whom the Kingdom has deep resentment even in normal days. The Syrian war is going against Saudi interests.

To add to all these miserable foreign policy failures, MBS has taken on powerful sections of Princes and Moneybags like Prince Tallal, Prince Miteb, Prince Nayef and moneybags like Bin Laden et al. Of course, Prince Nayef, the only one from the Sudairi Seven who could have thwarted the ascent of MBS to the throne after King Salman's time, was purged four months back itself. Prince Nayef's father, the elder Nayef, was the Kingdom's Interior Minister for decades. There were reports then that there was significant resistance to MBS within the royal family and the court. However, there is none left within the immediate Sudairi Seven clan who could mount a counter coup. This has to come from outside now.

He has also taken on the clergy by proposing a review of Hadith. There is an opinion gaining ground that the Hadiths must be done away with. He had also arrested some members of the Muttawwa (the dreaded religious police) and punished them too. Something unheard of in the Kingdom. The Shi'a in the oil-rich eastern region (the Jubail area) have long been smarting under the repressive Saud regime and may link up with counterparts in Bahrain and Kuwait if the security situation within the Kingdom worsens. MBS is allowing women to drive, something the powerful King Abdullah hinted at but could never implement in his ten year rule. Many other economic reforms, including tighter tax regimes, representation for women in jobs, reduction in allowances to Princes & Princesses etc could lead to resentment. The declining oil income, which is never going to touch the dizzy heights of the 70s & 80s at all and the declining moral authority of KSA consequently, would lead to greater insecurity & instability. MBS should not place much reliance on the fickle-minded Trump's support.

The implication for India would be two fold. One, the access to fossil fuel if the refineries and ports there are shut or attacked. Two, there is still a large number of Indians working there though in recent times many have returned. A nasty situation might lead to another of the non-combatant evacuation operation (NEO) for the IN. In earlier times, a difficult situation for KSA would have had a similar impact on Pakistan too; but, in current circumstances, one doubts it.

atma
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 04 Jun 2006 23:37
Location: Frozen Tundra

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby atma » 07 Nov 2017 13:41

“It is the most volatile period in Saudi history in over a half-century.”

“Corruption charges can be generated on just about anyone in government or business,” says Colin Kahl, a professor at Georgetown University who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East in the Obama administration. “This looks like the final step to consolidate MBS's authority by removing possible challengers.”


Whether bin Salman’s consolidation is good or bad depends on where you look. When it comes to domestic policy, MBS’s ascendance largely been a force for reform: He has shown tremendous willingness to battle the religious establishment, including championing the ultimately successful push to grant women the right to drive, and seems committed to modernizing the oil-dependent Saudi economy. But on foreign policy, he has been incredibly destructive — masterminding Saudi Arabia’s escalation in Yemen, a war that has claimed more than 13,500 lives, and badly bungling a diplomatic crisis with Qatar.


https://www.vox.com/world/2017/11/6/16613088/saudi-arabia-princes-arrested-mohammed-bin-salman

atma
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 04 Jun 2006 23:37
Location: Frozen Tundra

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby atma » 07 Nov 2017 14:01

SSridhar wrote:I would say that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is lurching towards instability.
The implication for India would be two fold. One, the access to fossil fuel if the refineries and ports there are shut or attacked. Two, there is still a large number of Indians working there though in recent times many have returned. A nasty situation might lead to another of the non-combatant evacuation operation (NEO) for the IN. In earlier times, a difficult situation for KSA would have had a similar impact on Pakistan too; but, in current circumstances, one doubts it.


Instability in SA under MBS would likely trickle into the Gulf Sheikdoms, especially the UAE, which has a huge Indian expat population, a huge exodus from the area (SA + other GCC countries), in the long term would have a economic impact ( loss of remittances) on the Indian economy as well.
Last edited by atma on 07 Nov 2017 14:01, edited 1 time in total.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21699
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby SSridhar » 07 Nov 2017 14:01

^ very true.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 882
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby Manish_P » 07 Nov 2017 14:18

What would be the implications be for the security of India with MBS in absolute control at the helm.. and with him removed?

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21699
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby SSridhar » 07 Nov 2017 14:31

Manish_P wrote:What would be the implications be for the security of India with MBS in absolute control at the helm.. and with him removed?

I think MBS is good for India. He seems to be for a moderate Islam; willing to revise the agenda of the Wahhabi clerics; and, is opening up a closed society. These are all good things for India.

However, he may be doing too many things too soon and taking on almost all powerful sections of KSA. This may lead to his downfall and instability as King Salman is the last of the Sudairi Seven and succession is unclear. Too many may vie for the position if MBS is gone leading even to civil disturbances.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 882
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby Manish_P » 07 Nov 2017 15:10

I am not too sure about moderate Islam. Would a state of internal strife keep them too pre-occupied with their own issues to create problems for others (including propping up our neighbour)?

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby periaswamy » 07 Nov 2017 16:11

MBS is not being honest with his claims of bringing moderate islam, since it is the same wahabbi clerics who help KSA spread not-so-moderate islam for decades, and there has been no news indicating that there was a change of the guard among the clerics. What we are seeing some sort of royal bloodletting without any change in the religious side. MBS's claims seem highly fishy given this reality.

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 774
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Saudi Arabia and its impact on Indian security

Postby Bart S » 07 Nov 2017 16:59

If nothing else, he is good for India, and the rest of the world if he causes prolonged internal instability and power struggle. It's best that the Salafi/Wahabi barbarians are kept inward looking and focussed on internal issues as that makes them less powerful in terms of spreading Wahabism and terrorism in other countries, funding and sheltering fundamentalist clerics, mosques and Zakir Naik type people, influencing other countries to gang up on Iran, influencing US policy, or coming to the aid of Pakistan. Except for oil (fast becoming irrelevant) they are an insignificant country and nobody will miss them if they go down in flames and implode like Syria or Iraq.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cosmo_R, Falijee, Lisa, Raveen and 28 guests