The New Yorker features a new piece (in many cases if a publication has a paywall you may bypass it by accessing the link using your browser’s Incognito mode) about Saudi Arabia’s rape of Yemen. It’s depressing, but necessary reading because of the immense suffering the ambitious Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has wrought there. It’s reminiscent of a similar bit of genocide unfolding against another Muslim ethnic group in Burma, the Rohingya.
A 9 year old Yemeni girl suffering from malnutrition thanks to Saudi Arabia’s blockade of Yemen’s ports and borders
But what struck me additionally was the text in this graphic tweet promoting the New Yorker article. Saudi Arabia has intervened in two conflicts which began as “domestic power struggles.” In the beginning of the Syria conflict, the Sunni Saudi regime intervened out of concern for the majority Sunni population being slaughtered by the Alawite butcher, Bashar al Assad. In one sense, the concern and desperation to help their Sunni brethren was understandable. But the way in which they pursued this mission was fatally flawed and destined to fail. A massive intervention exploiting the worst of the Islamist scum allied with al Qaeda and ISIS was a terrible miscalculation.
Whatever the Saudi original intent in intervening in the Yemeni civil conflict, its vast overkill, massacre of thousands of civilians, mass starvation of children–all of this once again guarantees the House of Saud will fail here as well.
When you are a major power or seek to become one, the secret to success is being judicious in the exercise of power. You decide when it’s absolutely necessary to act. You do not act when action is not necessary. And in acting, you carefully calculate the possible outcomes in order to avoid the worst. Saudi Arabia’s current leadership is deliberately flouting this approach. It is using power wildly without calculating any outcomes. It is acting rashly and provocatively. When it fails it pulls back but offers no alternative approach. It is making enemies where before there were none.
Much as we might criticize Iran for its various sins (and they certainly exist), its foreign policy seems much more carefully calibrated. It seeks to determine what its core interests are and to defend them. It tries not to overextend itself. It does not hit out wildly at imagined enemies nor does it make new enemies unless absolutely necessary. And it is open to re-evaluating relations with former enemies to turn them into, if not allies, then at least neutral parties. By the way, these are rules Turkey’s President Erdogan might consider adopting as well.
I’m similarly struck by how similar Israeli policy is toward its own frontline neighbors. Israel’s security policy has no long-term strategy to achieve its national goals. All it does is engage in tactical actions which preserve short-term advantage. Its leaders, both political and military, have no vision of the future nor any sense of how to get there. They like and want the status quo, which as any medieval poet or metaphysician will tell you, cannot remain the same forever. Heraclitus taught that the only constant in life is change. It is a fundamental truth of human existence, but one which Israel rejects. The more you seek for the world to remain as it is, the more it will slip through your hands like sand.
Instead of seeking long-term stability through forging constructive relations with former enemies, Israel prefers to dominate through military superiority and constant acts of war and belligerency. Though it has not generally acted as precipitously as the Saudis have over the past few years, Israel has more than made up for that by its serial and perpetual hostility over many decades toward almost all its frontline neighbors (at one time or another).
Israel too has intervened regularly in the internal affairs of neighboring states, most notably Lebanon and Palestine. It’s sought to direct domestic political developments of sovereign states and peoples against the will of the inhabitants. When it’s found itself unable to do this through threats or intimidation it’s turned to assassination and military aggression. These efforts have, like the Saudis, universally failed. Israel’s decade long siege against Gaza has not toppled Hamas. It’s two decade occupation of southern Lebanon failed to create the pliant client state Israel had hoped for. Nor has Israel’s alliance with al-Nusra in Syria brought success. The Shiite alliance of Assad, HEzbollah and Iran has triumphed over the Sunni Islamists.
So in all these senses, Israel and Saudi Arabia both are pursuing belligerent, rash, ill-considered policies which repeatedly end in bloodshed and failure. They are birds of a feather. They think alike and act alike. One is an Islamist theocracy clawing its way toward a society that is, at least internally, slightly less brutal, kleptocratic, and misogynist, while the other is a former secular state clawing its way toward an Orthodox settler theocracy that is brutal, kleptocratic and misogynist.
I am sorry Richard, but your statement that SA intervened in Syria because it was concerned about the Sunnis is totally wrong. Listen to what VP Joe Biden said in October 2014 at Harvard. He said, SA, Qatar, UAE, and Turkey wanted to topple Bashar Assad so badly that they were willing to give military and financial backing to anyone who would fight the Assad regime, and then he added, except that the only ones who were fighting in Syria were the terrorist. Read Hillary Clinton’s e-mail to John Podesta in which she says that SA and Qatar helped Daesh, al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups. SA did not intervene because it was worried about the Sunnis. If it were, it would start from ITS OWN SUNNIS AT HOME. It intervened because it wanted and still wants to control Syria.
@ Muhammad: Thanks for this information which I hadn’t read myself. I’ll read up on it and note it when I write further on the subject in future.
My recollection is that in the first stage of the Syrian conflict, say the first year or so it was largely an internal domestic conflict in which the Sunni majority protested non-violently against the minority regime. After Assad’s massacres of these civilians began in earnest, that’s when the Sunnis states began to cobble together a plan to oust Assad. So what I was saying was that I don’t think the Sunni states wanted to topple Assad until he began murdering Sunni’s en masse some time after the revolt began.
[comment deleted: Palestine or Israel-denial are cardinal comment rule violations. Since you are directed to read the rules before posting your first comment (clearly you didn’t read them or don’t care) you will be moderated. You may publish future comments as long as they respect the rules, which you should now read.]
I generally agree with your statements about Iran. Iran has become a formidable regional power through patience, determination, strategic thinking, good understanding of the region, and very clever statecraft. Their natural resources don’t hurt either. They are hyper-rational actors, unlike what Israeli leaders say when trying to scare people.
Putin is similar, although he may have overplayed his cards in his intervention in the US elections.
I wish I could say the same for the US, either under Trump or Obama. Trump is an impulsive moron and Obama was so cautious as to be paralyzed.
With regards to Saudi Arabia, I think that your statements are a bit flippant, in presuming that if Saudi leaders and intelligence officials could only see what you see about their interests from your desk in Seattle they would act differently. The Saudis are trying to defend their backyard sphere of influence, in the same way that Russia intervened in Syria, Georgia and the Ukraine. They’re drawing a line in the sand against Iranian influence in the Arab world.
Ditto for the Israelis. As for Israel’s situation, whether you like it or not, their economic, military, and political position has never been better. Yes there are always looming threats but if you look at the trend of what actually happens the direction is positive. I say this even though I can’t stand Bibi.
Israel never seeked to control Lebanon for the sake of control itself, but rather to secure its northern border communities. I would say that this objective has been achieved, for the most part. Unlike many pundits I am not predicting another war with Lebanon in the near future.
I am not as sure about the Assad/Iranian “victory” in Syria as many commentators. Notwithstanding the military victories, Assad/Iran/Russia have now become the lords of a failed. divided and destroyed country that will never be the same. They will use it as a proxy just as countries do with Lebanon, but that’s hardly a “victory”.
@ Yehuda:
Yup, and Erich Honecker said the same thing before the Wall came down. And Gorbachev thought the same when he first came to power. THings look great till they don’t. And it all happens very, very quickly. You keep snoozing through geopolitical reality as you are. Don’t let reality wake you from your slumber. But when it does boy are you gonna be surprised.
This too is ludicrous. Israel sought to control southern LEbanon period. It doesn’t matter whether you think the reason was good or bad, commendable or not from Israel’s point of view. From any reasonable point of view Israel’s occupation was a flagrant violation of international law and it also was a miserable failure with hundreds of Israeli boys dead over 2 decades for no reason. And the northern border is now quiet not because Israel is so powerful & frightening to its aversaries, but because those adversaries right now have other fish to fry. And oh yes, about that coming war against Lebanon–if will be here sooner than you know.
Unlike Israel, Russia and Iran have no long term interest in occupying foreign territory. In fact, they’re far more subtle in use of their power. They didn’t break Syria and so they don’t “own” it. Assad is the one who will rule this dungheap. And as for who’s responsible for it becoming one, Israel and its military intervention and support for al Nusra is as much responsible as most of the other frontline states.
“Unlike Israel, Russia and Iran have no long term interest in occupying foreign territory. In fact, they’re far more subtle in use of their power.”
Now that is got to be one of more absurd and tendentious statements, Richard. You’ve outdone yourself. Syria, Lebanon and Yemen are all far from Iran’s borders, yet Iran feels compelled to intervene (and we know all know why), via their Shiite proxies or directly. These countries pose no threat to Iran at all. But you almost justify that “subtle” use of Iranian power. You totally disregard Shiite Iranian revolutionary ideology and that Iran is acting upon it. Yet in contrast, when Israel acts adjacent to its own borders with Lebanon or Syria, where it has immediate security interests, you consider that illegitimate, aggression and occupying, and blame those countries problems on Israel’s adventurism.
I got to hand to you. You really have chutzpah making those claims.
@ Yehuda: Israel physically invades and occupies the sovereign territories of other nations (Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, etc). Iran doesn’t do that. As for “intervening” in countries near and far, Israel has that ground covered quite nicely. When Israel stops intervening in Palestine, Syria, Gaza, Sudan, Tunisia, Lebanon, Dubai, Bulgaria, Jordan (all places which it’s occupied, bombed, or in which it’s murdered enemies), then let’s talk about stopping Iran’s interventions.
Israel only acts “adjacent to its own borders??” Really. I guess you missed all the interventions I listed above.
And no country may have “security interests” which involve invading or occupying any other country. THere is no such thing. Of course countries like Israel and the U.S. ignore such niceties and do whatever the hell they like to their neighbors. A disgusting habit by the way. You should do something about that.
As for “posing threats,” are you really claiming that Saudi Arabia and Israel pose no threat to Iran? Are you daft? Of course they do. Their leaders actively foment regime change & assassinate Iranians inside Iran. As for “revolutionary ideology,” Iran’s isn’t as dangerous as Israeli ultra-nationalist-settler ideology which has led to an unending round of disasters for the region & Israel itself.
You’re done in this thread.