I Never MENA Hurt You; I Never MENA Make You Cry 2017 (Middle East, North Africa, and Other Geopolitical Hotspots)

i have no idea what to make of it

are the saudis going to attack lebanon? that seems impossible right?

Mohammed bin Salman is responsible for Saudi Arabia's foreign policy debacles over the past few years (v. Syria, Yemen, and Qatar). Seems following his tête-à-tête with Jared Kushner, he decided to double down on the arrogance.

Ian Master's interviews with David Hearst (editor, Middle East Eye) and Thanassis Cambanis (Beirut journalist) from Nov 5 shed some light.

Oops, I posted this already. Guess memory impairment is one of the side effects.

are the saudis going to attack lebanon? that seems impossible right?

― Mordy, Friday, November 10, 2017 3:24 PM (twenty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i don't think they'll attack, but ratchet-up tensions, put in place trade restrictions, give israel a nudge (and maybe some financial inducements) to deal with hezbollah while they're presumably weakened by their involvement in the syrian civil war?

Saudis probably want Israelis to fight Lebanon, but I don't think the Israelis want that now, as much as they despise Hezbollah

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-airport/saudi-led-coalition-air-raid-puts-yemens-sanaa-airport-out-of-service-agency-idUSKBN1DE27Y

Greenwald and others like him are blaming the US for this. Predicting more famine and death

I talked to a friend who lived Beirut a long time (and speaks Arabic but isn't Arab) and her view is that KSA is sidelining Hariri in order to make Lebanon *more* unambiguously a Hezbollah govt so they (the Saudis) can have a freer political hand to intervene there militarily; I don't really see how that makes sense but neither does any other theory I've heard

I've actually been hearing that theory a lot tbf

me2 thus my question above - it's hard to imagine SA really intends to conduct a military operation in Lebanon unless they plan on ramping up + turning the tide in Syria...

Which also doesn't make sense, given the recent [Russia-Saudi arms deal](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-king-salman-visit-saudi-arabia-moscow-vladimir-putin-a7985161.html).

But on other issue...Is anyone working to resolve Saudi vs Houthi in Yemen war, and the humanitarian crisis in Yemen for civilians?

certainly not the u.s., canada, or uk who are happy to sell the saudis weaponry/send them military advisors

the fact that we hear so much about the humanitarian crisis in syria and even say the rohingya but the yemeni catastrophe is barely covered by western media makes me feel kinda greenwald lol

Yemen has the special position of being both dirt fucking poor and Muslim, so nobody in the US gives a shit

There are a bunch of wars going on that receives less attention than Yemen, though. South Sudan, for instance. And the opportunity to put blame on the US is one of the main reasons that people like Greenwald care, which is sorta racist in it's own way.

oh ffs.. yemen is arguably the biggest humanitarian disaster that's happening right now with the potential for millions of deaths from starvation. greenwald's american. it is actually his government's fault to a large extent. why should he not care? i'm a british person who lives in canada, i'm disgusted at the governments of both countries as i think it's natural to be. yet our press could not be more obsequious regarding the arms/military assistance to saudi arabia.

Sure, but compared to the other three countries in this article, South Sudan, Somalia and Nigeria, Yemen isn't underreported: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/11/world-faces-worst-humanitarian-crisis-since-1945-says-un-official

And some of the coverage is frankly abhorrent, as when some old email was dug up to blame the whole war on Hillary Clinton. That is not about moral disgust, that's about using dead yemeni to score political points.

the fact that our governments are directly responsible for the yemen crisis and could end it if they wanted would be the key point to me. but I'm just trying to score political points.

That is not a fact. Unless you live in Saudi Arabia?

the US is providing arms + intelligence it's kinda silly to quibble over whether that equals "directly" or not. would SA prosecute this war w/out US help? i'd think so (surely they are more committed to fighting Iran through proxy conflicts than the US is). but they wouldn't be able to do as much damage.

The US and the West clearly has blood on our hands in Yemen, but so do we in South Sudan, Somalia, Syria, etc. The idea that somehow the US could stop the humanitarian crisis in Yemen if we wanted to is, well, not a fact. If anything, the lack of a regional power behaving like a lunatic might mean the West could do a hell of a lot more good wrt humanitarian help in Somalia or Nigeria.

u.s. provides logistical and intelligence support to saudis in yemen. u.s., along with canada, uk, france etc. provided the majority of planes, bombs (including cluster bombs) and missiles that have been used to enforce blockade of yemen and destroy civilians (packed public places such as markets have been deliberately targeted) and civilian infrastructure. the u.s. weapons deal is to saudi arabia in the time leading up to the war is the largest weapons deal in u.s. history.

leading up to and during i should have said

Part of the reason the weapons deal is so large is because Saudi Arabia is a really really rich country that isn't on any sort of sanctions list. They can get enough weapons they want for a number of genocides. Which is not to say that the West is without guilt in this case, our relationship with Saudi Arabia has been cynical and disgusting for decades. But we're not 'directly responsible' for the war in Yemen, and we could not just end it if we wanted to. Saudi Arabia is a big regional power, a rich and powerful country, and they can pretty much do what they want to. The responsibility for the Yemen disaster lies with them, and especially with crown prince Mohammad bin Salman.

What Saudi Arabia and its allies are doing in Yemen is abhorent, but Yemen has topped my list of Malthusian basket cases for a some time. Population has more than doubled since 1990, according to the FAO it imported 95% of it cereal in 2011-13, and the cost for this equaled a third of its exports. A few years ago Guardian reported Yemen had nearly drained the aquifer under Sana'a, with 45% having gone to grow the narcotic qat.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.823163

this doesn't augur particularly well for the people of lebanon

i disagree

Eisenkot said Israel has no intention of initiating an attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon. "We see Iranian attempts at bringing about an escalation, but I don't see a high chance for this at the moment."

i don't think israel has any motivation to start a conflagration in lebanon. the only possible motivation would be attempting to deny hezbollah strategic assets (primarily coming from iran) but bombing those transports in syria have proven sufficient (and garnered russian support). another asymmetrical counter insurgency quagmire would go against bibi's conservative status quoism and would produce no obvious benefits. this is a good read: https://ottomansandzionists.com/2017/11/16/are-israel-and-saudi-arabia-on-the-same-page/

directly responsible for the yemen crisis and could end it if they wanted

I agree with the idea that the US and other western allies of KSA share a direct responsibility for some of the events in Yemen. I disagree with the idea that KSA's western allies could end it 'if they wanted'.

It's tempting to believe that the world dances to the tune the west decides to play, but KSA is a very wealthy country with its own regional and international interests and nothing short of full-scale military intervention by the west could force KSA to stop a war it views as necessary to its interests. I think we've had ample demonstrations since the Vietnam War that just because a western power "wants" a particular outcome to some conflict, is no guarantee that it gets what it wants.

i disagree

Eisenkot said Israel has no intention of initiating an attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon. "We see Iranian attempts at bringing about an escalation, but I don't see a high chance for this at the moment."

i don't think israel has any motivation to start a conflagration in lebanon. the only possible motivation would be attempting to deny hezbollah strategic assets (primarily coming from iran) but bombing those transports in syria have proven sufficient (and garnered russian support). another asymmetrical counter insurgency quagmire would go against bibi's conservative status quoism and would produce no obvious benefits. this is a good read: https://ottomansandzionists.com/2017/11/16/are-israel-and-saudi-arabia-on-the-same-page/

― Mordy, Thursday, November 16, 2017 9:25 AM (two hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i just meant israel further aligning itself with the increasingly reckless saudis -using their nonsense "shia crescent" slogan and all - and donald trump and the fact that hezbollah/lebanon seems like the most likely target if any of this rhetorical sabre-rattling is to turn into military action. admittedly (and this is a pretty huge admittedly) israel would need some sort of provocation from hezbollah to launch such an attack, if history is any indicator, and even with the war in syria winding down and assad's place looking assured i don't think hezbollah are going to be up to any shenanigans with israel any time soon.

That "Shia cresent" talk may be shaping U.S. military action. I've seen several leaked combat footage clips of U.S. SOF working with opposition Syrian militia along Syria route 2, the shortest route between Damascus and Baghdad. Reflected in the green blob extending from the Iraqi border at this war situation site, recently. It's not particularly relevant ground for the war against ISIS.

the crescent isn't a joke imo. at least from israel's perspective it is a huge threat having iranian weapons on its border across lebanon + syria.

Big story that's been underreported in the US.

Nov 14: Raqqa’s dirty secret

The BBC has uncovered details of a secret deal that let hundreds of IS fighters and their families escape from Raqqa, under the gaze of the US and British-led coalition and Kurdish-led forces who control the city.

A convoy included some of IS’s most notorious members and – despite reassurances – dozens of foreign fighters. Some of those have spread out across Syria, even making it as far as Turkey.

...

In light of the BBC investigation, the coalition now admits the part it played in the deal. Some 250 IS fighters were allowed to leave Raqqa, with 3,500 of their family members.

“We didn’t want anyone to leave,” says Col Ryan Dillon, spokesman for Operation Inherent Resolve, the Western coalition against IS.

“But this goes to the heart of our strategy, ‘by, with and through’ local leaders on the ground. It comes down to Syrians – they are the ones fighting and dying, they get to make the decisions regarding operations,” he says.

Mike Lofgren asks:

Was there a diplomatic exchange between the Saudis and the United States over the Raqqa deal to preserve a Saudi “asset?”

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/hundreds-of-isis-fighters-covertly-evacuated-as-part-of-us-uk-deal-report/articleshow/61703015.cms

Various tweets and more about this

Oops, what I meant to say is the Lofgren idea plausible, or hard-to-believe conspiracy theory as compared to more mainstream take that deal was just designed to limit casualties

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/hundreds-of-isis-fighters-covertly-evacuated-as-part-of-us-uk-deal-report/articleshow/61703015.cms🕸

Various tweets and more about this

Fox and Friends and Tweeter in Chief are not covering or acknowledging this theory:

It is common knowledge that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has funded and logistically supported ISIS. It is plausible that the Saudis, particularly under the energetic new Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the virtual power behind the throne in the Kingdom, would be involved in any decision involving ISIS, a number of whose fighters were Saudi nationals. Since the crown prince gained power, Saudi Arabia has orchestrated the blockade of Qatar, held the Lebanese prime minister as a near-prisoner, used famine as a weapon against Yemen, and replaced Benjamin Netanyahu as the most active force trying to instigate war between America and Iran. Was there a diplomatic exchange between the Saudis and the United States over the Raqqa deal to preserve a Saudi “asset?”

Who is covering it in the western 'MSM'?

Newsweek & CBS picked it on their websites up on the 14th, but I don't know if it made print or broadcast. Repurcussions inbound: Turkey appalled, thinks Kurds want conquest, not end to ISIS, and doesn't have info on ISIS fugitives. French military said coalition opposed the escape.
UK envoy admits knowing, but coalition couldn't stop it.

Is this the same story as that isis convoy of buses that was wandering around the war zone a couple months ago?

184 dead ... so far

200 now.

235.

that's utterly horrible.

IS is the main suspect in yesterday's Egypt mosque massacre but there's no claim. HOWEVER: the act appears to have shocked influential IS supporters on social media who are claiming IS's innocence

— Samer Al-Atrush (@SameralAtrush) November 25, 2017

Death toll now over 300.

this is quite difficult to process and utterly horrifying

imagine being a sufi anywhere in the world right now, this is krystallnacht p much

probably a bad comparison but seriously. this feels like a declaration of genocide. fuck these people