Category:Saudi Arabia

From A Closer Look On Syria
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Inside Saudi Arabia’s Campaign to Charm American Policymakers and Journalists, Lee Fang, The Intercept, December 1, 2015
  • Reuters, Feb. 5, 2016:A Saudi general said the kingdom was "ready to participate in any ground operations that the (U.S.-led) coalition (against Islamic State) may agree to carry out in Syria". Brigadier General Ahmed Asseri, who is also the spokesman for the Saudi-led Arab coalition fighting Iranian-backed forces in Yemen, was speaking to Saudi-owned al-Arabiya TV. U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter welcomed the Saudi offer.
A top Iranian military commander says a "definite" defeat awaits Saudi Arabia if it sends troops to Syria, Presstv, Feb. 6, 2016
A convoy, said to be about 100 Humvees, transported on trucks, is videoed near Syrian border. It is said that more convoys and more equipment arrived- report, Feb. 9, 2016

Nuclear?

It is believed that Saudis invested in Pakistani program, and feel that they can buy the bomb at will (BBC, Nov. 2013).

QUESTION: Because the Saudis have not even ruling out the possibility, given their concern about this nuclear deal with Iran, they could go forward and buy some – maybe buy a nuclear bomb, maybe from Pakistan. You’ve heard those concerns.
SECRETARY KERRY: Sure, we’ve heard those things. But you can’t just buy a bomb and transfer it.
QUESTION: Why not? They got a lot of money.
SECRETARY KERRY: There are all – there’s all kinds of NPT consequences. I mean, there are huge implications of that. And Saudi Arabia knows, I believe, that that is not going to make them safer, nor is it going to be easy, because the very things that Iran went through, they would then be subject to with respect to inspection, NPT, and so forth.

Socio-Economic

Al-Akbar publication

'A secret document about a correspondence between al-Jubair and Mohammed bin Salman', Al-Akbar, in Arabic (robo-translation), 14 November, 2017

  • Unknown whether this is genuine
  • 'Reconciliation with Israel and the revocation of the right of return and the internationalization of Jerusalem' ( + support against Iran).
  • Appeared on wider-audience Moon of Alabama earlier than here, anyway.

Discussion

  • Unknown whether it's true, but may be genuine.

This may be controversial enough, and no need to make it even more so. Thus the comment is limited to two technical points:

  • Right of return had no chance to be accepted, that was known for a long time, and a series of attempted solutions did not have it as an item. What's new here is acceptance and measures to re-settle refugees (as opposed to maintaining the problem and the Arab-Israeli conflict).
  • International status of Jerusalem is not a new idea; different versions were proposed in attempted settlements (administered by God, or UN, or security control by Israel among the proposals). Being administered by USA is a new element which has practical (in the human world) side to it, and is a compromise with a chance of acceptance. (Russia has religious presence in Jerusalem. If this comes to UN vote, Russian position is unknown).
--Resup (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Historic