Saudi Arabia…
…seems to be in big trouble.
The country has been a walking contradiction for a long time:
Last week’s mass executions in Saudi Arabia suggest panic at the highest level of the monarchy. The action is without precedent, even by the grim standards of Saudi repression. In 1980 Riyadh killed 63 jihadists who had attacked the Grand Mosque of Mecca, but that was fresh after the event. Most of the 47 prisoners shot and beheaded on Jan. 2 had sat in Saudi jails for a decade. The decision to kill the prominent Shia cleric Nimr al-Nimr, the most prominent spokesman for restive Saudi Shia Muslims in Eastern Province, betrays fear of subversion with Iranian sponsorship…
…Saudi Arabia finds itself isolated, abandoned by its longstanding American ally, at odds with China, and pressured by Russia’s sudden preeminence in the region. The Saudi-backed Army of Conquest in Syria seems to be crumbling under Russian attack. The Saudi intervention in Yemen against Iran-backed Houthi rebels has gone poorly. And its Turkish ally-of-convenience is consumed by a low-level civil war. Nothing has gone right for Riyadh.
Worst of all, the collapse of Saudi oil revenues threatens to exhaust the kingdom’s $700 billion in financial reserves within five years…
For decades, Riyadh has presented itself as an ally of the West and a force for stability in the region, while providing financial support for Wahhabi fundamentalism around the world. China has been the kingdom’s largest customer as well as a provider of sophisticated weapons, including surface-to-surface missiles. But China also has lost patience with the monarchy’s support for Wahhabi Islamists in China and bordering countries.
Good news, bad news—which is it?
Maybe Obama is trying to start a big war between the suni and shia.
If you recall, the perceived imminence of the fall of the House of Saud was one of the secondary reasons advanced for toppling Saddam Hussain in Iraq – gotta have a substitute source of oil so the world economy does not implode if the Sauds go down. In fact, it was a primary reason as many with memories of the damage done to the world economy by the fall of the Shah in Iran assumed automatically that the U.S. would be held to account if the KSA fell along with its (then) 8 million barrels/day of crude oil production.
With more production from other sources the Chinese are happy to practice linkage between the practices of the KSA regime in NW China and their sourcing of crude oil. Would that we were so choosy about our KSA “allies” and their support for a broad array of subversive elements within the U.S.
But don’t go looking for geopolitical smarts in the current WH and foreign policy crew. For every time some policy wonk says on TV “Well, I think the president will really need to consider X if he was the U.S to continue to exert influence in (place name here)”, it carries the presumption that the current WH actually cares about adverse impacts on the U.S. and its people.
Having people think of the US as a country that abandons its allies is unalloyed bad news.
Two can play the game of undermine thy neighbor, so Iran isn’t in the best of positions to weather the hatred of its already hostile people. Regime change in Iran is an eminently sensible policy in many quarters: has been for decades. Look who’ll fall first.
With no love of the Saudis, I still do not think that another void in that part of the world could be good news.
The obvious fear is that Iran would exploit the vacuum by manipulating the Shia minority in Saudi and other Sunni strongholds. But, a forward thinking American Administration could push others forward to take the lead; e.g. Egypt. Did I just make a joke?
Since the Saudis own the Mecca (pun) of the Sunni world, it would seem that with a little forward thinking they could parlay that into the basis of a Sunni coalition to confront outside threats. Then if they allowed some measured reforms, they might stabilize their internal security. On the other hand, forward thinking does not seem to be their strong suit. One cannot help but wonder about the toll of inbreeding on their governing–read Royal–class. I honestly believe that they have become almost entirely dependent on western nations who in turn are hungry for oil. The large number of ex-pats in their airline, oil, and other key industries are symptomatic.,
Still, I find it hard to believe that the oil based financial woes are permanent. If I recall correctly, the Saudis allowed prices to fall–if they did not precipitate it–to undercut the American production. They have certainly been successful with that. They still may be able to buy their way out of a looming crisis.
It would be nice to believe that the American people now understand the need for a strong hand, tempered by a judicial temperament to steer through times of turmoil.
Yes, it would be nice.
“to undercut the American production”
Well, maybe. Certainly many people assert that. But we should bear in mind that the oil weapon works all the better against the Russian and Iranian economies, far weaker nations than the United States, nations far more dependent on high oil prices than the US.
“Good news, bad news–which is it?”
A bit of both really.
The Saudi’s do stand as the bulwark to an Islamist take over of Saudi Arabia. Imagine another ISIS with Saudi money behind it. In the Muslim world, whomever controls Mecca has a powerful status. A Wahhabi regime allied with ISIS would have a powerful claim on having established the beginning of another Caliphate.
Another possibility should the Saudi Royals fall, is that once Iran reaches nuclear capability, the a new Wahhabi regime might well cooperate with the Iranians in holding hostage the 1/3 of the world’s oil that passes through the Strait of Hormuz.
On the other hand, the West would finally have to stop pretending that the Saudis are allies.
Obama quit pretending years ago.
Geoffrey Britain:
The bad bit sounds bigger than the good bit.
The fall of the House of Saud (and the other aligned gulf countries would fall, too) would be an utter disaster for the US and the West.
The good news would be the Saudi government doing less to export and support Wahhabi Islamism outside its borders. But one also wonders if the government did that just to contain the extremists within its own borders.
The bad news is that with restive minorities (Shia Muslims), lots of young people dissatisfied with their lot, religious extremism, neglect by its allies (Obama and his incompetence, malign or not), and decline in its one source of revenue with oil, Saudi Arabia could fall apart internally rather quickly.
How can Obama not understand this? Or does he know, and just not care? Will we end up with ISISA or ISILA (Islamic State in Iraq, Syria [or the Levant], and Arabia)?
Nothing good comes from islam, be it sunni or shia. Its long past time to quarantine them all and allow dog to eat dog. (Not intended as a slur against actual canines.)
a 100 year sunni-shim war wouldn’t be all that bad
I believe that it was here, some months ago, in which I offered my modest opinion of why Obama was bending over backward to get nuclear weapons to Iran. After all, arguably everything else he has done in the area directly benefits Sunni jihadists – why help out an entity that stands opposed to them?
It happens that Iran has an enemy that is also an enemy of jihadists – Saudi Arabia and the allied gulf states. Obama knows that one of the first things Iran is going to do is attack Saudi Arabia and maybe even Israel. After an ugly war between the major powers in the area, who benefits?
Why, the cockroaches in the shadows of course – the Sunni jihadists who stand to gain territory, weapons and power in the aftermath of a regional war that damages all of the parties that otherwise might hamper them.
For the last year or so the Sauds have been pumping at full capacity. They have done so to crush our new fracking industry and also hurt the Russians. Iran also hurt.
SA dipping into their sovereign wealth fund and selling bonds. Running a budget deficit. All being done to hurt us.
This is the thanks we get for savings their a$$es. SA has abused us for 40 years. SA also funds terrorists.
All the Sauds need to do is just slightly scale back their pumping and prices go up.
The GOP candidate who calls for a fee or tariff on OPEC oil to get back at these ingrates will go up in the polls.
Ingrates!
Parker is correct.
Contain and disassociate ourselves from Islam. The beauty of it is would could be North America energy independent at $50 WTI.
neo,
Which do you prefer, open hostility or the knife in the back? Remember, that we are not interested in war does not mean that war is not interested in us.
Yankee,
The Saudi Royal’s pandering to Wahhabists and covert support for stealth jihad is the price they pay to keep revolt at bay. The custodian of Mecca must be worthy…
parker,
You know that the West will not quarantine Islam. Far too many will never admit that they only sleep peacefully in their beds at night because “rough men stand ready to do violence upon their behalf”
Col Jessup was right,
If the Greens didn’t control energy policy, we would control the oil and gas market. We are already number one. If we open up Alaska and off the FL coast, we would radically increase our production given what fracking has done.
We have allowed the the Sauds to be the swing producer that sets the marginal price. It doesn’t have to be that way.
Between WWII and 1992 the U.S. worked to keep the ME oil flowing and to keep Communism out. Since 1992 things have been in flux, but our policies have not kept up with the changes.
First, Communism in the ME is no longer a huge threat, but our policies haven’t changed that much. Second, we have not recognized the double game that the Saudis were playing with respect to exporting Wahhabism and terror. Third, we have been slow to understandand confront the threat from Wahhabi jihadism. Fourth, the oil supply situation has rapidly changed in a direction that made ME crude less valuable in the West. Because of that we should have challenged OPEC and its price fixing some years ago. Now, OPEC has become irrelevant. Our invasion/occupation of Iraq opened up Iraqi oil production, which had been declining under Saddam, which provided even more reason why OPEC was becoming irrelevant. But we didn’t/haven’t seized the opportunity.
The Saudi Royals need our help. They are incompetent – as is all of Saudi Arabia. The country is operated by imported workers. The Saudis are unable to work – they have a bad case of welfare entitlement mentality.
We should offer them our military backing, but only on our terms. To wit: They must pay for our military expertise and personnel, they must squelch the exportation of Wahhabism, and they must agree to help establish some sort of division of Iraq and Syria into Shia, Sunni, and Kurd independent regions all living in peace. (As much peace as Muslims can maintain among themselves.)
If we don’t do that, there is a good chance that Saudi Arabia will become another failed state much like Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, etc. Except with oil wealth, which could make them extremely dangerous to the West.
If we back the Sunnis against the Shia (Iran mostly, but also Assad/the Alawites, and Shia Iraq), it’s possible the Shia will come to terms.
Some might want to do as Obama has done – stay lightly engaged. I don’t think that’s possible. The oil, even though we don’t need it, and the enmity of the Wahhabists make this region of the world too important for us to not be engaged fully. At least we should be picking the side we’re going to be on. Things are tumbling down hill very quickly and major war clouds are billowing.
GB,
Of course the West is not ready to quarantine islam; we lack the will to act in concert and the courage to face reality. But it will eventually come down to a choice between blockade to starve them into submission or total war.
The rise of fracking technologies has been disrupting to the existing order and had several unintended or unthought of consequences. The role of swing producer is permanently shifting from the few i.e. the Saudis to a great many distributed producers not under direct political control, the frackers, first in the US and later in coming decades worldwide.
One concrete painful consequence is it will bring down the Saudi’s along with several other regimes. If you think that will happen without consequences for us consider Syria 10 X over.
The Saudi refusal to cut production is often seen as a strategic choice made from strength to hurt the US and/or Russia. More likely it’s a desperate move unlikely to forestall a bad end for the Saudi’s.
Fracking means a huge increase on the supply side of oil and natural gas that will lower the price of oil to a level that is below a sustainable price for the Saudi regime. The key price is not their lifting cost, but the price level they need to pay for bribing the huge numbers of people on the dole or in make work jobs.
As fracking increased here in the US and Canada it became clear to them the long term price would begin dropping. They could wait for that to happen or preemptively strike. That strike keeping production up and drawing down on their savings to pay for it, that is failing.
The low oil prices will not stop fracking – it’s getting more productive, i.e. the breakeven cost is dropping as technology and techniques are improving. In what must be a nightmare for the Saudi’s watching, the fracking improvements are being accelerated by the low prices.
Any increase in prices will draw more oil out of the ground from hundreds of frackers dampening any upward push.
The incentives for the Americans to act as peacekeepers in the MidEast are diminishing as their own oil sources increase.
As several pointed out above the Saudi’s have often not acted in our best interests even as we’ve kept them in power. Their money will run out soon enough but their power support even faster.
Their oil money has allowed for a massive increase in population. Other than their oil money what other sources to support their current standard of living are there? The end will be bloody and the spillover to Europe and N and S America potentially dangerous.
Look how defenseless we and the Europeans are to a few million Syrians.
On the positive side this episode with the Syrians refugees is forcing us and especially the Europeans to develop the organization and policies to deal with such influxes. When the bigger flood heads hopefully we all will have worked out how to deal with it effectively and in a way that allows us to survive.
Baloney. All of it.
The Kingdom’s Sunni allies are starting to line up against Iran. This is just Sunni vs Shiite.
Nothing to see. If you think this is a big deal, you’ve been hearing the loons.
“… the organization and policies to deal with such influxes.”
What are you imagining Otiose? I can see only one form of organization and policies to deal with the invasion in a ‘safe’ manner: close the borders and deport the recent arrivals.
“it will eventually come down to a choice between blockade to starve them into submission or total war.” parker
There is one more choice, surrender. The by far preferred choice of many Americans, who will work hard to obstruct total war. And the hard core Left has been working for nearly a century to engineer that collapse of will.
A democrat President will never engage in total war. Obama is already on record as stating that we can survive a mass attack, his assertion being made in the context of ‘not needing to lower ourselves to their level’, which obviously ‘total war’ would do (sarc off).
Geoffrey, he means His Preciousness can survive a total war. Us peons? not so much, but we can eat cake, can’t we?
Everything will change if/when we are attacked again, in sufficient strength. Worst case would be the endless series of pinprick attacks, which would lead many “U.S. Persons” (as the unspeakable Hussein calls us) to curl up in a ball and whimper for mercy.
We shall see what we shall see.
I may be wrong, its happened before, but I can envision a time, not far in the future, when a majority in the West realize there are only 2 choices (as I noted previously); and GB’s 3rd choice is off the table. It will require tens of thousands of the death of innocents, but one day the West will awaken from the spell of the ‘progressives’ and realize it is a war of civilization versus the barbarian horde.
The Bushes were close with the Saudis, so I say let ’em fry.
Two other great commentators have their own views.
Belmont Club and Spengler
J.J. and Otiose have also offered great commentary.
Nothing will improve until Obama is gone and a Republican, any Republican, is back in charge.
PatD:
That Spengler article is the one I linked to and quoted in my post.
Is ALL this worry REALLY about Saudi? (And Islam.)
Ian Bremmer of the Eurasia Group, a foreign global political risk consulting firm, says that SA has instituted an austerity budget within the Kingdom.
Their problem, he says, is maintaining political legitimacy – especially given that the US Deal with Iran essentially means the latter’s been picked for regional hegemony. And with this new event, only the UAE and Dubai have followed AS to break relations with Iran. Not even Egypt has acted, yet.
Bremmer doesn’t name him, but the greater problem with the sheer number of sources of political instability – six failed states in the ME, record numbers of migrants from conflict zones, and another million or two headed to Europe, even as the Schengen free transit zone crumbles – is the complete absence of US-Nato leadership, namely Obama.
Bremmer points out that Britain is seducing China, which is spending a quarter-trillion dollars each quarter for foreign investment; France, after their 9/11 in November, is cozying up with Russia because only they are serious about defeating ISIS; and Germany is playing “let’s mollify Turkey!” because they host two million potential more migrants…
The result is that Europe is pulling itself in completely different directions, and Bremmer concludes that the Nato alliance is at its weakest – during this time of global instability – since the Marshall Plan.
HAPPY 2016!
I think that sums up the global context of the ongoing global meltdown, while SA is attempting to save itself.
“…six failed states in the ME…”
And another waiting in the wings “…slouching toward Bethlehem waiting to be born.”….
(Actually, already in Bethlehem.)
Since apparently another murderous, kleptomanic, failed Arab state is what’s absolutely needed at this point.
Yes, the world, in its magnificent wisdom, has spoken.
File under: Bedlam.
Agree with almost everything you have said above and prior on this issue. Especially the fact that we do not have a coherent or rational energy policy because policy is being made by people who are incoherent and irrational, and don’t want us to use fossil fuels at all.
Somehow we have to reestablish a polity in which the voluntary extinction crowd only succeeds in “extincting” itself.
Otiose, I do not know where you are, but I recognize a wealth of knowledge in what you have written, especially about fracking. I would know a great deal less, if my son had not been working for the past couple of years, in a company related to fracking, and what he reports is precisely in line with what you have said, about fracking becoming more efficient and therefore more profitable, making American oil profitable at forty bucks a barrel. Cheap oil was always good for the American non-petroleum economy, and now the stage is set for another American oil boom equal to, or greater than the one of the early twentieth century. Whichever of you said, above, that the target of the Saudi oil squeeze was Iran or Russia was probably right, too. Damaging American production was merely a side benefit, and that has, mostly, failed. Obama likes it, of course, because it would be bad for Texas, but we weathered such a storm thirty years ago, and are much stronger, now.
That is likely the reason that many states are being over run, by Federal decree, with unlettered Third World pre-documented voters. The Socialists will do whatever economic damage they can, but they always believed more in political dominance than in economics.
Geoffrey Britain nailed it @ 10:23 pm:
There is one more choice, surrender. The by far preferred choice of many Americans, who will work hard to obstruct total war. And the hard core Left has been working for nearly a century to engineer that collapse of will. A democrat President will never engage in total war.”
The Demsheviks and their lickspittle enablers in the media will trot out Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, and Michael Moore. Every campus will be full of “No blood for oil” protests. A Republican president will be vilified as a racist and bigoted war monger.
The Demsheviks will engineer defeat, just as with Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
How many times does this need to be re-proven? We are a house deeply divided. We can’t even agree 2+2=4.
Mark Dubowitz, WSJ: Amid Tensions With Saudi Arabia, Grim News for Iran’s Economy
Obama ineptly wants to switch sides from the Saudis to the Iranians. Much better to preserve a balance of power between them What we should be doing is using Saudi Arabia’s current difficulties as leverage to finally get them to reign in their support of terrorists and Wahhabi religious extremists all over the world, including funding mosques in the West.
Saudi Arabia just executed 43 people over the weekend, by far the most of them al-Qaeda and ISIS types. What, didn’t notice that in all the furor over a single Shia cleric advocating the overthrow of the regime ?
sdferr:
What part of “last night’s mass executions” and “most of the 47 prisoners shot and beheaded” don’t you understand?
This part: “to finally get them to reign in their support of terrorists”
Get it?
sdferr:
So, you were addressing that commenter?
Bingo
Landau, Stein, The National Interest: Iran’s Ballistic Missiles Are Actually a Huge Problem
Yeah man, the damn Saudis’ missiles sure are threatening.
@neo-neocon:
When I moused over the link, I misread “atimes” as “latimes”. Sorry.
sdferr:
To avoid confusion, it’s always best—when addressing a particular commenter—to use the commenter’s name, as I just did in this comment to you.
I frequently don’t do that neo — I usually write as if in simple conversation, depending on contextual cues to impart intent. Maybe it’s a bad habit of mine, but maybe not to the extent it’s good for people to learn to probe a writer’s intentions in order to discern meaning. If confusion arises, then it’s probably good to reexamine one’s assumptions to see whether things begin to cohere under different assumptions. I’ve been at this conversation business for a long time, after all, and that generally works for me.
sdferr:
But most people reading will have no idea what you’re talking about, and to whom you’re talking. People aren’t going to go back and read the entire comment thread to see what on earth you might be meaning to say. It causes confusion in readers, and the conversation lacks meaning as a result.
Those readers won’t miss anything they don’t put into it. They’re perfectly welcome to assume I’m a dumbass, and then get nothing whatsoever. Right? And they’ll be none the worse, since their assumptions meet their desires.
sdferr: good luck.
I mean that in all sincerity. You just got snarky with another commenter, in such a fashion that our hostess had good reason to think you were addressing her. You did not see fit to correct her politely, but rather, continued on your snarky way, leaving it to HER to figure it out — without so much as an apology for the miscommunication. Then you explained that this is just the way you usually talk. She politely explained how people converse with one another in her house (i.e. this blog), so as to avoid unnecessary confusion… and you brushed her off.
As I said, good luck. I’m not sure what you’re trying to achieve here, but clarity of communication ain’t it.
Contrariwise, I believe I can encourage people to be adults and work things out for themselves, even asking questions of themselves now and again — and if stymied sometimes, as we all are sometimes, ask things of me — I’ll generally be content to answer. Certainly babies they ain’t.
Well, they seem at least to have publicly and outright admitted the former alternative as to proximate aim. What their ulterior motives may be can only be guessed.
sdferr:
Contrariwise, I believe I can encourage people to be adults and work things out for themselves…
How can you expect that, if it’s not even clear to whom you’re talking?
Just imagine Daniel that it’s directed to everyone who is in need of it. That should do the trick.
Michael Adams: The Saudis will continue to drop the price of oil. Oligopoly and monopoly commodity price is set at the level necessary to keep new competitors from coming into the market, but no lower. Econ 101 — dig out your Samuelson.
Of course, Samuelson didn’t account for the actions of our “Energy? We don’t got no stinkin’ Energy. We don’t NEED no stinkin’ Energy!” Department.
sdferr:
Well, if you prefer to confuse people and have them skip what you say because they either can’t understand it or think that you are saying something ignorant or careless (for example, I thought you had ignored the content of the post), then that’s your decision. It has been my experience that if a person wants to communicate clearly, best to specify what you mean and whom you are addressing.
Ya makes your assumptions, ya takes yer chances. No more than anyone else does do I like to be assumed to be stupid (as it appeared you did think, while I thought you’ve had ample reason to have known better), and can you imagine neo?, I might have thought, “Now that’s odd too that neo would be so thick asking the insulting ‘What part of ___ don’t you understand?’ ” But it’s my fault for being “snarky”, to be sure. I’m the one in need of instruction how to communicate, since I simply haven’t had enough practice.
sdferr:
Even people who ordinarily are careful can make errors. Your error seemed to so egregious that I could only conclude you had been careless.
And how is “what part of [fill in the blank] don’t you understand?” such an insult? If you don’t seem to understand something that seems to be that clear, it’s a reasonable question.
In suggesting you address the people you mean to be addressing, in order to clarify things, I am merely making a suggestion that would help you avoid misunderstandings. I wonder why you’re so reluctant to apply it. It seems you would rather be obscure and make people go on a treasure hunt to understand you. I don’t understand why you’d want to do that. In a group forum, making clear who you’re actually addressing—especially when making a joke that, taken out of context, makes it sound as though you hadn’t paid attention to the post—would seem to be something a person would want to do. It’s not condescending to make it clear who you’re talking to.
For example, more times than I can count, in the comments here someone has said something insulting that addresses “you.” I assume that they’re talking to me. But sometimes it turns out they’re talking to another commenter without making that clear. It wastes a lot of time to clarify that; it’s good to clarify it up front.
Prior to making a response to the question concerning what’s insulting about the question “What part of”, which sure, is a reasonable question in some circumstances where in other circumstances is nothing of the sort — and in order to put molehills as molehills and not make them into mountains — it may be worthwhile for me to point out that it isn’t a perfect habit I have not to directly address an interlocutor by name, for I do that sometimes, or to quote a phrase or statement putting that quote in italics, and use other contextual means to indicate with precision what exactly I’m addressing — just to have these variations on this record apart from the actual record which is and has been available to anyone, so to speak.
So, neo, you say you could “only conclude”. Well, in the event, what becomes of that “only”? That is, when I quoted TrueNorth’s phrase, was it immediately apparent what my previous comment had meant? Or not? And if immediately apparent, what became of your “only”? Disappeared, would be my guess, since the alternative which made ‘sense’ of the whole thing was clear, or clearer, where previously it was possibly obscured for any number of reasons. So, why insulting then? Not so terribly insulting after all, but even “only” a little? Because the “only” only worked on one presumption: that it was my error and not possibly yours that was the problem. Whereas, had you paused to reflect, hypothetically say, **hey, maybe this needn’t be as absurd as it appears on its face, maybe this guy is referring to the comment immediately prior to his own as if in conversation…**, then the actual error would have immediately come to light and displace the formerly presumed and mistaken error? Well, maybe. And “only” within the interstices of that “maybe” lies a minor insult. Very minor, and yet here we carry on wasting time teaching me how to communicate with the best of communicators.
sdferr:
Actually (at the risk of seeming stupid myself)—I must say that no, it was NOT apparent what you meant even after you indicated which commenter you were addressing.
I don’t get the joke, actually (I’m assuming it was a joke?). But I took your word for it that you meant something by it, and that that something was somehow related to that commenter’s use of the wrong form of the word “reign.”
Tone is very important online, and it’s hard to indicate tone. It helps to know you were addressing someone and not just ignoring the facts in the post—but even now, it’s still not clear to me what you meant.
Now I’m beginning to wonder whether I know what I meant. Ha! I meant that the Sauds are killing jihadists (under the terms of this very post! oh, irony! where is thy sting?), which can’t or shouldn’t make the jihadists pleased with the Sauds but should by rights be pleasing to us Americans who also suffer jihadists’ depredations and murders. What I’d thought TrueNorth was denying the Sauds do already, but that the Sauds can’t seem to do enough if they do at all by TrueNorth’s lights. That, I think, was the point.
Should please us Americans, sez I, but seems not to please PresidentIWonPenPhone in the least, as he goes out of his way to support his Iranian Supreme Leader bud all the more. Does this imply PrezPenPhone isn’t an American? Ooo, best not go there, right? In effect Obama tells the Sauds, don’t be killing your enemies, because your enemies are our allies. You Sauds fear Iranian nukes? (To say nothing of what IWonPenPhone is telling the Israelis, who also have sufficient reason to fear Persian nukes along with Hezbollah’s missiles.) Well screw you Sauds (and you too, Israelis), tough shit, ’cause we’ll see them have ’em. Y’all are on your own. And the Sauds? They get it, they know they’re on their own — at least until such time as someone sane takes the CinC office in Washington. Enter Sen. Cruz. Him, the Iranians get.
parker, I agree,
If some MidEast Islamic invasion were attempted into Europe (or the US) there is no doubt as to the outcome. But look how befuddled they (and we) are when unarmed people just walk in claiming ‘refugee’ status.
Europe (and we – probably post Obama) can and will develop the organization and policies that will “close the borders and deport the recent arrivals” but we don’t have it now.
The people that should be getting deported first are the traitors in the West.