Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The Atlantic - Max Fischer - Would Iran Really Want to Blow Up the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S.?

But, for all the plausibility that Iran might be willing to blow up a Saudi ambassador, it's not at all apparent what they would gain from it. Iran has never been shy about sponsoring terrorism, but only when it was within their interests, or at least their perceived interests. It's hard to see how they could have possibly decided on a plot like the one that Holder claimed today.

What would it really mean for Iran if the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. were killed in a terrorist attack in Washington? The U.S.-Saudi relationship has been bad and getting worse since the start of the Arab Spring, with the Saudi monarchy working increasingly against the democratic movements that the U.S. supports. A senior member of the royal family even threatened to cut off the close U.S.-Saudi relationship if Obama opposed the Palestinian statehood bid, which he did. If the U.S. and Saudi Arabia really broke off their seven-decade, oil-soaked romance, it would be terrific news for Iran. Saudi Arabia depends on the U.S. selling it arms, helping it with intelligence, and overlooking its domestic and regional (see: Bahrain) abuses.

If the U.S.-Saudi alliance fell apart, the Shia-majority Islamic Republic of Iran would have an easier time pushing its regional influence against Saudi Arabia, especially in some of the crucial states between the two: Iraq, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates. Iran would be able to reverse its increasing regional isolation and perhaps flip some Arab leaders from the U.S.-Saudi sphere toward its own. The best part of this, for Iran, is that it probably wouldn't even have to do anything: the U.S.-Saudi special relationship, if it collapses, would do so without Iran having to lift a finger. The dumbest thing that Iran could possibly do, then, would be stop the collapse, to find some way to bring the U.S. and Saudi Arabia back together. For example, by attempting to blow up the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. on American soil.

My bold

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Oct 12th, 2011 at 08:06:24 AM EST
In fairness, Steve Clemons, also at the Atlantic, takes the opposite view.

It's an essay worth reading as it is full of interesting tit-bits about relationships in the region of which I was unaware but, finally, although it is an assemblage of fascinating details, they don't, imo, add up to a convincing narrative.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Oct 12th, 2011 at 08:09:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah. Perhaps the worst bullshit ever to emerge from the PNAC club.

The wider, far more important point is that if you look at it from the "who benefits?" angle, it does not look like it could have come from Obama.
If not, the internal struggle for control has accelerated. Obama never got a grip on the PNAC peni (plural for a pig's sexual organ?)-- too fastidious to grab the handle? and they are still trying to finish him off.
But---with this?
Senile.
Does not keep them from being dangerous.


Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Wed Oct 12th, 2011 at 01:11:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
People like John Bolton, the Cheney swarm etc who, if not actually in Government, always know they can use the Permanent Shadow Establishment of Defence, Intelligence and Security assets to effect policy.

Obama has been far too indulgent of Republicans of all stripes, including the delusional fanatics at PNAC, to pull them up sharply now.

Who benefits ? Follow the money. Always. Look under any rock in DC and you'll see a Halliburton subsidiary scuttling for cover, but always rattling a tin for yet another contract to shoot a few gooks here and there to promote Pax AmeriKKKa. Convergence of interests.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Oct 12th, 2011 at 01:28:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Right now the feature film on the screen is the presidential race, with dingbats like Bolton maneuvering in the aisles,  but my primary interest is in Obama's lack of control over this. I still say, if they push it big time, it's a no-win for him, and in a big way. I don't think the big payoff here is only more access to military contracts- they had that sewed up long ago. It's discrediting Obama.

Look at today's papers. They are pushing the "Act of War" meme hard. This seems too stupid for words, but just look at the current GOP poll leader! Missile defense at the dining room, dear lord.
 

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Thu Oct 13th, 2011 at 01:57:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, Obama is the status quo President, anyone who looked could see that from years out. And so he inherited wars and he keeps 'em going; steady as she goes. I think Obama's perceived lack of control is as much a case of his belief that asserting his view is somehow "not bipartisan". Yet by such failure, he is a willing participant in discrediting himself.

He also doesn't want to upset AIPAC who also want their war with Iran. So he can't go out on a limb  cos he knows their revenge would be even more damaging than that of PNAC.

There is a sentiment building in the US that these wars have gone on too long, and that they don't want another, but like #Occupy.. that is neither here nor there cos it hasn't made any political demands and so it hasn't really impacted the thinking of the elites yet.

when they go from the dKos position of electing more democrats to electing anti-everwar and anti-WallSt politicians then things'll change. But it'll be a long time coming.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Oct 13th, 2011 at 03:07:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series