Dylith, Iraq, Kurdistan, and so forth

[umair127]

Saudi Arabia turned pretty hard against radical Islamist funding in 2003 after they were attacked by such groups. The Al Sauds purged over 2000 of their preachers after that and really cracked down on a lot of its official funding programs. Of course, there are still a lot of Saudi elements that have deep support for Salafi movements so funding still seeps out and Saudi policy is inconsistent in terms of how heavily it cracks down on that based on what is going on internally at the time. The 2009 flooding for example caused such uproar against the Al Sauds that they gave religious sects more freedom and control. It is a back and forth game with Saudi Arabia.

The Gulf states have long supported extremist Syrian rebels and Iraqi terrorism. Only recently have the Saudis changed their strategy, when ISIS actually became an existential threat to them.

When you say 'major state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East', that's a pretty weak statement that doesn't quantify or put anything into perspective.

If Assad supported AQ (which is probably based on flimsy propaganda since Assad is considered 'evil' by the US), then by the same logic, not only did the US support terrorism, but it funded it with training and weapons, which now spilled over into Iraq and has undone most of the 'progress' the US has made Iraq.

Lol "I didn't know that Assad supported AQI, so it must be propaganda despite the fact that the intelligence industry has a lot of data on it and have reported on it for years."

Look, you were wrong about Syria, no big deal. No need to try to justify not knowing, you don't specialize in this stuff so who cares?

[noviapriani]

Saudi Arabia turned pretty hard against radical Islamist funding in 2003 after they were attacked by such groups. The Al Sauds purged over 2000 of their preachers after that and really cracked down on a lot of its official funding programs. Of course, there are still a lot of Saudi elements that have deep support for Salafi movements so funding still seeps out and Saudi policy is inconsistent in terms of how heavily it cracks down on that based on what is going on internally at the time. The 2009 flooding for example caused such uproar against the Al Sauds that they gave religious sects more freedom and control. It is a back and forth game with Saudi Arabia.

The Gulf states have long supported extremist Syrian rebels and Iraqi terrorism. Only recently have the Saudis changed their strategy, when ISIS actually became an existential threat to them.

When you say 'major state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East', that's a pretty weak statement that doesn't quantify or put anything into perspective.

If Assad supported AQ (which is probably based on flimsy propaganda since Assad is considered 'evil' by the US), then by the same logic, not only did the US support terrorism, but it funded it with training and weapons, which now spilled over into Iraq and has undone most of the 'progress' the US has made Iraq.

Lol "I didn't know that Assad supported AQI, so it must be propaganda despite the fact that the intelligence industry has a lot of data on it and have reported on it for years."

Look, you were wrong about Syria, no big deal. No need to try to justify not knowing, you don't specialize in this stuff so who cares?

There is no proof Assad supported AQ. AQ was hostile to Assad why would he ever support them. I'm still not convinced. No one is. Stop being a apologetic for every aspect of US foreign policy. Next thing you'll tell me is that we invaded Iraq because it had WMDs and I'm supposed to believe the obvious propaganda

[umair127]

Saudi Arabia turned pretty hard against radical Islamist funding in 2003 after they were attacked by such groups. The Al Sauds purged over 2000 of their preachers after that and really cracked down on a lot of its official funding programs. Of course, there are still a lot of Saudi elements that have deep support for Salafi movements so funding still seeps out and Saudi policy is inconsistent in terms of how heavily it cracks down on that based on what is going on internally at the time. The 2009 flooding for example caused such uproar against the Al Sauds that they gave religious sects more freedom and control. It is a back and forth game with Saudi Arabia.

The Gulf states have long supported extremist Syrian rebels and Iraqi terrorism. Only recently have the Saudis changed their strategy, when ISIS actually became an existential threat to them.

When you say 'major state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East', that's a pretty weak statement that doesn't quantify or put anything into perspective.

If Assad supported AQ (which is probably based on flimsy propaganda since Assad is considered 'evil' by the US), then by the same logic, not only did the US support terrorism, but it funded it with training and weapons, which now spilled over into Iraq and has undone most of the 'progress' the US has made Iraq.

Lol "I didn't know that Assad supported AQI, so it must be propaganda despite the fact that the intelligence industry has a lot of data on it and have reported on it for years."

Look, you were wrong about Syria, no big deal. No need to try to justify not knowing, you don't specialize in this stuff so who cares?

There is no proof Assad supported AQ. AQ was hostile to Assad why would he ever support them. I'm still not convinced. No one is. Stop being a apologetic for every aspect of US foreign policy. Next thing you'll tell me is that we invaded Iraq because it had WMDs and I'm supposed to believe the obvious propaganda

It wasn't just Syria, it was Iran as well. Both had vested interests in seeing Iraq destabilized against the US coalition. But Syria's support of AQI (which is different from AQ) stems from its historic support of Kurdish militant groups against turkey, not only the PKK, but more specifically in northern Iraq with the Ansar al-Islam movement which is where Zarqawi traced his Iraq roots and which was one of the predecessors to AQI under Zarqawi. This group was also used in competition with Iraq.

Syria also funded Fatah Al Islam in Lebanon which had Al Qaeda links as well. It was essentially an extension of the Syrian intelligence targeting Palestinians who had split with Fatah for use against Lebanon and Israel.

But the predecessors aside, right as Saudi Arabia was recoiling from militant support in 2003, Syria was ramping it up. Pro Saddam militias, insurgents, and AQI depended on Syria as their main resource avenue for materials, money networks, and foreign fighters. While said resources came from all over, it was in Syria that AQI, with the tacit and sometimes active approval and assistance of the Assad Administration established their operational support infrastructure. This is also one of the main reasons why, when they turned against their historic backers in 2011 and 2012, that the ISI was able to expand so rapidly in Syria and become the ISIS, it's because their infrastructure was already there and they could control the flow of foreign fighters into Syria. They also had pre-existing weapons caches inside Syria, had communication infrastructure and networks already pre-established, and had the political and operational contacts needed for the dissemination of foreign material and funding.

[zolace]

Saudi Arabia turned pretty hard against radical Islamist funding in 2003 after they were attacked by such groups. The Al Sauds purged over 2000 of their preachers after that and really cracked down on a lot of its official funding programs. Of course, there are still a lot of Saudi elements that have deep support for Salafi movements so funding still seeps out and Saudi policy is inconsistent in terms of how heavily it cracks down on that based on what is going on internally at the time. The 2009 flooding for example caused such uproar against the Al Sauds that they gave religious sects more freedom and control. It is a back and forth game with Saudi Arabia.

The Gulf states have long supported extremist Syrian rebels and Iraqi terrorism. Only recently have the Saudis changed their strategy, when ISIS actually became an existential threat to them.

When you say 'major state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East', that's a pretty weak statement that doesn't quantify or put anything into perspective.

If Assad supported AQ (which is probably based on flimsy propaganda since Assad is considered 'evil' by the US), then by the same logic, not only did the US support terrorism, but it funded it with training and weapons, which now spilled over into Iraq and has undone most of the 'progress' the US has made Iraq.

Lol "I didn't know that Assad supported AQI, so it must be propaganda despite the fact that the intelligence industry has a lot of data on it and have reported on it for years."

Look, you were wrong about Syria, no big deal. No need to try to justify not knowing, you don't specialize in this stuff so who cares?

There is no proof Assad supported AQ. AQ was hostile to Assad why would he ever support them. I'm still not convinced. No one is. Stop being a apologetic for every aspect of US foreign policy. Next thing you'll tell me is that we invaded Iraq because it had WMDs and I'm supposed to believe the obvious propaganda

While I can't say I can link to proof positive that Assad supports AQ or ISIS, it's common knowledge to people who live there. The fact of the matter is that the politics of the area are impossibly complicated, based on old tribal issues, ongoing feuds that have no strategic importance, and convoluted thinking, sometimes religious, and sometimes not.

The most obvious would be in Iran, which has elements in the military that are scarily religious, but just as strong a contingent that has no interest in religion, only money. Even when you talk about Saudi Arabia, you think of the iron control by the House of Saud in the form of the old king and crown prince. The next generation, which will be getting more control in the next few years has vastly different perspectives, and they mostly hate each other and certainly distrust each other. And there are A LOT of them with different agendas and lots of money.

[umair127]

We have pretty strong evidence of this via first hand former combatant testimony, and due to the intensity of our scrutiny of these supply lines in the wake of the Sinjar Document revelations and subsequent investigation.

But AQI aside, there are plenty of other terrorist organizations that Syria has been more than happy to aid even more assertively at one point or another, a couple of which I already mentioned (Fatah al-Islam, the PKK, and Ansar al-Islam), among them are: Hezbollah, Hamas, the Islamic Jihad Organization, The Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Al Saiqa, Amal, and the ANO.

Even during the course of the civil war the Assad Administration has continued to purchase oil from the ISIS which it has been able to do through these long standing internal networks.

Syria has literally funded terrorism against every single one of its neighbors.

[zolace]

We have pretty strong evidence of this via first hand former combatant testimony, and due to the intensity of our scrutiny of these supply lines in the wake of the Sinjar Document revelations and subsequent investigation.

But AQI aside, there are plenty of other terrorist organizations that Syria has been more than happy to aid even more assertively at one point or another, a couple of which I already mentioned (Fatah al-Islam, the PKK, and Ansar al-Islam), among them are: Hezbollah, Hamas, the Islamic Jihad Organization, The Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Al Saiqa, Amal, and the ANO.

Even during the course of the civil war the Assad Administration has continued to purchase oil from the ISIS which it has been able to do through these long standing internal networks.

Syria has literally funded terrorism against every single one of its neighbors.

I'm sure YOU will disagree on this though: The only policies that can work for the US in the middle east as a whole is back the most ruthless SOBs they can find, regardless of ideology, or stay the hell away from the politics. Trade with whoever is a worthy trading partner, and let Russia and Turkey start to take de facto control of the area. Mixing in the general brouhaha seems to be a disaster in the making. The former is the tried and tested methods of the last 70 years. The latter being what seems to be happening now.

[zolace]

I guess I'm just not sure. It has worked well enough for the last 60 years, and is only coming apart because Obama seems to be changing long standing policy. I'm just not sure if he's accomplishing what he wants to accomplish.

As far as SA....I expect a shitstorm within a decade. Too much money, too many warring cousins that aren't as bright as they think they are.

[umair127]

We have pretty strong evidence of this via first hand former combatant testimony, and due to the intensity of our scrutiny of these supply lines in the wake of the Sinjar Document revelations and subsequent investigation.

But AQI aside, there are plenty of other terrorist organizations that Syria has been more than happy to aid even more assertively at one point or another, a couple of which I already mentioned (Fatah al-Islam, the PKK, and Ansar al-Islam), among them are: Hezbollah, Hamas, the Islamic Jihad Organization, The Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Al Saiqa, Amal, and the ANO.

Even during the course of the civil war the Assad Administration has continued to purchase oil from the ISIS which it has been able to do through these long standing internal networks.

Syria has literally funded terrorism against every single one of its neighbors.

I'm sure YOU will disagree on this though: The only policies that can work for the US in the middle east as a whole is back the most ruthless SOBs they can find, regardless of ideology, or stay the hell away from the politics. Trade with whoever is a worthy trading partner, and let Russia and Turkey start to take de facto control of the area. Mixing in the general brouhaha seems to be a disaster in the making. The former is the tried and tested methods of the last 70 years. The latter being what seems to be happening now.

I don't disagree with anything that you've posted here, though I don't think that supporting "the most ruthless SOBs" is a sustainable practice or in our long run interest. Particularly in Saudi Arabia, which may very well be the next giant storm after this elder generation dies.

[Rigon]

I guess I'm just not sure. It has worked well enough for the last 60 years, and is only coming apart because Obama seems to be changing long standing policy. I'm just not sure if he's accomplishing what he wants to accomplish.

As far as SA....I expect a shitstorm within a decade. Too much money, too many warring cousins that aren't as bright as they think they are.

[noviapriani]

The general policy of injecting instability into countries, and either publicly or privately assisting tough dictators hold on to power. And inserting them into power in some cases. I'm not speaking of public policy, but rather the pragmatic side of it.

[umair127]

The general policy of injecting instability into countries, and either publicly or privately assisting tough dictators hold on to power. And inserting them into power in some cases. I'm not speaking of public policy, but rather the pragmatic side of it.

You didn't really give a country example. We've already been over Egypt and noted how his stance there has been pretty consistent with historical US policy, particularly when compared to Reagan's dealings with Sudan, and we talked about Libya, where the US has long opposed Gaddafi.

So where else are we talking about? If anything I've found the current administration to be MUCH more pragmatic than the previous one. We've handled the DPRK better, Burma better (both more pragmatically) and we've pulled out largely from Iraq and Afghanistan while simultaneously keeping a clearly non-ideological based drone program active.

[noviapriani]

In Egypt, he allowed the dictator previously supported to fall. This is specific to Egypt, and has caused some issues, none of which are terribly important to the US at this time. Other presidents have done different things in different countries because it probably made sense at the time, in that particular place. Letting dictators fall is rare, even though it has been done when the dictator tried to bite the hand etc. I'm not familiar with any hand biting in Egypt.

[umair127]

In Egypt, he allowed the dictator previously supported to fall. This is specific to Egypt, and has caused some issues, none of which are terribly important to the US at this time. Other presidents have done different things in different countries because it probably made sense at the time, in that particular place. Letting dictators fall is rare, even though it has been done when the dictator tried to bite the hand etc. I'm not familiar with any hand biting in Egypt.

Probably the largest venue in which we let ideology get in the way of "good business" has been with China and its human rights record, but even there he has been much more vocal about things like Chinese theft, Chinese cyber attacks, and in Asian sea disputes which has strained relations anyway.

[noviapriani]

In Egypt, he allowed the dictator previously supported to fall. This is specific to Egypt, and has caused some issues, none of which are terribly important to the US at this time. Other presidents have done different things in different countries because it probably made sense at the time, in that particular place. Letting dictators fall is rare, even though it has been done when the dictator tried to bite the hand etc. I'm not familiar with any hand biting in Egypt.

Probably the largest venue in which we let ideology get in the way of "good business" has been with China and its human rights record, but even there he has been much more vocal about things like Chinese theft, Chinese cyber attacks, and in Asian sea disputes which has strained relations anyway.

Before I go any further, I don't recall you talking about Sudan and Reagan...what was your point there? Because as you know, Sudan was at most a pawn in issues relating to Ethiopia. And the Leadership in Ethiopia making close connections with the Soviet Union. If you're talking about Reagan possibly picking winners and losers in a peripheral fight in Ethiopia, then that isn't exactly the same as letting hand picked dictators fall.

[umair127]

In Egypt, he allowed the dictator previously supported to fall. This is specific to Egypt, and has caused some issues, none of which are terribly important to the US at this time. Other presidents have done different things in different countries because it probably made sense at the time, in that particular place. Letting dictators fall is rare, even though it has been done when the dictator tried to bite the hand etc. I'm not familiar with any hand biting in Egypt.

Probably the largest venue in which we let ideology get in the way of "good business" has been with China and its human rights record, but even there he has been much more vocal about things like Chinese theft, Chinese cyber attacks, and in Asian sea disputes which has strained relations anyway.

Before I go any further, I don't recall you talking about Sudan and Reagan...what was your point there? Because as you know, Sudan was at most a pawn in issues relating to Ethiopia. And the Leadership in Ethiopia making close connections with the Soviet Union. If you're talking about Reagan possibly picking winners and losers in a peripheral fight in Ethiopia, then that isn't exactly the same as letting hand picked dictators fall.

I mentioned Sudan under Reagan which I mentioned the last time we discussed Egypt, because it is located in the same geo-political region, and was part of our triple alliance between the US - Egypt -and Sudan.

I reference the Nimeiry Administration which was probably the most pro-US administration to ever exist in the Sudan, and one that fell to populist protests / demands for democracy while Reagan was in office (the military intervened to form a transitional government much like Egypt's military did).

Despite how heavily we relied on Sudan to check Gaddafi's growing influence in Chad and his moves in eastern Libya (Sudan is a historical and current weapons smuggling route to both the Middle East and North Africa) the US has to and did, under Reagan pay homage to a more democratic process even though it left us with a leader who was much more adverse to the Untied States, not to mention the subsequent toppling of that administration by Bashir in 1989 (a coup which took place under HW Bush).

President Obama pretty much followed the same standard course with Egypt, only we've maintained better working relations with the end result (Sisi's government) than we managed to with the end result in Sudan (though we still do share intelligence there).

I also think that saying that we "let him fall" rather suggests that we had more control over the issue than we actually did. It would be like saying that Reagan "Let Nimeiry fall" when I think it would be more appropriate to simply say that we rolled with what was largely happening on the ground and defaulted during unstable times to our general talking points which favor democratic reform.

We saw the same process under HW Bush in Africa starting in 1989 and especially in the early 1990s with the fall of many of Africa's notorious big men (even those that had been aligned with us during the Cold War). Kaunda fell in 1991, Siad Barre also in 1991, etc

Under Clinton Hastings Banda fell in 1994, Mobutu Sese Seko in 1997, etc.

Under Bush W: Pervez Musharraf fell in 2008.

[noviapriani]

In Egypt, he allowed the dictator previously supported to fall. This is specific to Egypt, and has caused some issues, none of which are terribly important to the US at this time. Other presidents have done different things in different countries because it probably made sense at the time, in that particular place. Letting dictators fall is rare, even though it has been done when the dictator tried to bite the hand etc. I'm not familiar with any hand biting in Egypt.

Probably the largest venue in which we let ideology get in the way of "good business" has been with China and its human rights record, but even there he has been much more vocal about things like Chinese theft, Chinese cyber attacks, and in Asian sea disputes which has strained relations anyway.

Before I go any further, I don't recall you talking about Sudan and Reagan...what was your point there? Because as you know, Sudan was at most a pawn in issues relating to Ethiopia. And the Leadership in Ethiopia making close connections with the Soviet Union. If you're talking about Reagan possibly picking winners and losers in a peripheral fight in Ethiopia, then that isn't exactly the same as letting hand picked dictators fall.

I mentioned Sudan under Reagan which I mentioned the last time we discussed Egypt, because it is located in the same geo-political region, and was part of our triple alliance between the US - Egypt -and Sudan.

I reference the Nimeiry Administration which was probably the most pro-US administration to ever exist in the Sudan, and one that fell to populist protests / demands for democracy while Reagan was in office (the military intervened to form a transitional government much like Egypt's military did).

Despite how heavily we relied on Sudan to check Gaddafi's growing influence in Chad and his moves in eastern Libya (Sudan is a historical and current weapons smuggling route to both the Middle East and North Africa) the US has to and did, under Reagan pay homage to a more democratic process even though it left us with a leader who was much more adverse to the Untied States, not to mention the subsequent toppling of that administration by Bashir in 1989 (a coup which took place under HW Bush).

President Obama pretty much followed the same standard course with Egypt, only we've maintained better working relations with the end result (Sisi's government) than we managed to with the end result in Sudan (though we still do share intelligence there).

I also think that saying that we "let him fall" rather suggests that we had more control over the issue than we actually did. It would be like saying that Reagan "Let Nimeiry fall" when I think it would be more appropriate to simply say that we rolled with what was largely happening on the ground and defaulted during unstable times to our general talking points which favor democratic reform.

We saw the same process under HW Bush in Africa starting in 1989 and especially in the early 1990s with the fall of many of Africa's notorious big men (even those that had been aligned with us during the Cold War). Kaunda fell in 1991, Siad Barre also in 1991, etc

Under Clinton Hastings Banda fell in 1994, Mobutu Sese Seko in 1997, etc.

Under Bush W: Pervez Musharraf fell in 2008.

Well, the Reagan/Sudan thing is not as one dimensional as you seem to be saying. This isn't particularly an area I'm overly familiar with, but saying the Nimeiry admin was "the most pro American" is a bit disingenuous. He came to power as a pro socialist/pro pan Arabist, neither of which was particularly pro American foreign policy. He did become somewhat of an American ally, but when he started with the Sharia law thing, he essentially caused a civil war that he couldn't be protected from.

[umair127]

In Egypt, he allowed the dictator previously supported to fall. This is specific to Egypt, and has caused some issues, none of which are terribly important to the US at this time. Other presidents have done different things in different countries because it probably made sense at the time, in that particular place. Letting dictators fall is rare, even though it has been done when the dictator tried to bite the hand etc. I'm not familiar with any hand biting in Egypt.

Probably the largest venue in which we let ideology get in the way of "good business" has been with China and its human rights record, but even there he has been much more vocal about things like Chinese theft, Chinese cyber attacks, and in Asian sea disputes which has strained relations anyway.

Before I go any further, I don't recall you talking about Sudan and Reagan...what was your point there? Because as you know, Sudan was at most a pawn in issues relating to Ethiopia. And the Leadership in Ethiopia making close connections with the Soviet Union. If you're talking about Reagan possibly picking winners and losers in a peripheral fight in Ethiopia, then that isn't exactly the same as letting hand picked dictators fall.

I mentioned Sudan under Reagan which I mentioned the last time we discussed Egypt, because it is located in the same geo-political region, and was part of our triple alliance between the US - Egypt -and Sudan.

I reference the Nimeiry Administration which was probably the most pro-US administration to ever exist in the Sudan, and one that fell to populist protests / demands for democracy while Reagan was in office (the military intervened to form a transitional government much like Egypt's military did).

Despite how heavily we relied on Sudan to check Gaddafi's growing influence in Chad and his moves in eastern Libya (Sudan is a historical and current weapons smuggling route to both the Middle East and North Africa) the US has to and did, under Reagan pay homage to a more democratic process even though it left us with a leader who was much more adverse to the Untied States, not to mention the subsequent toppling of that administration by Bashir in 1989 (a coup which took place under HW Bush).

President Obama pretty much followed the same standard course with Egypt, only we've maintained better working relations with the end result (Sisi's government) than we managed to with the end result in Sudan (though we still do share intelligence there).

I also think that saying that we "let him fall" rather suggests that we had more control over the issue than we actually did. It would be like saying that Reagan "Let Nimeiry fall" when I think it would be more appropriate to simply say that we rolled with what was largely happening on the ground and defaulted during unstable times to our general talking points which favor democratic reform.

We saw the same process under HW Bush in Africa starting in 1989 and especially in the early 1990s with the fall of many of Africa's notorious big men (even those that had been aligned with us during the Cold War). Kaunda fell in 1991, Siad Barre also in 1991, etc

Under Clinton Hastings Banda fell in 1994, Mobutu Sese Seko in 1997, etc.

Under Bush W: Pervez Musharraf fell in 2008.

Well, the Reagan/Sudan thing is not as one dimensional as you seem to be saying. This isn't particularly an area I'm overly familiar with, but saying the Nimeiry admin was "the most pro American" is a bit disingenuous. He came to power as a pro socialist/pro pan Arabist, neither of which was particularly pro American foreign policy. He did become somewhat of an American ally, but when he started with the Sharia law thing, he essentially caused a civil war that he couldn't be protected from.

Regime change is something that pretty much every presidency has to deal with to one extent or another. President Obama is facing a larger challenge on that front than his predecessor (George W. Bush) due to the Arab Spring, but he played it very pragmatically in Egypt, Libya, North Korea, Yemen, and largely in Pakistan as well (since the new regime came into power largely while he was first taking office), if a little timidly in Syria.

President Obama's big departure from our past engagement in Egypt was that he was willing to talk to the Muslim Brotherhood, which was pretty pragmatic considering that they were the obvious candidates for control of a post-Mubarak government.

[noviapriani]

You're seeming to want to conflate uncontrollable circumstance with allowing situations to develop. I wasn't particularly saying that the US would do everything in it's power to keep any dictator in control, because the individual dictators are of little consequence. One of the differences in Egypt was disinterest in supporting Mubarak even a little, and not trying to push another dictator in behind. Unless you're indicating that Obama structured the Muslim Brotherhood to fail so that another military dictator could waltz in a year or so later in a coup with American support.

If I believed that, I would gain a lot of respect for Obama's Machiavellian-ism, although maybe not his ethics.

[umair127]

Numeiry was the most pro-US leader that an independent Sudan has had. A lot of African states (even those who sided with us during the Cold War) espoused the ideology of African Socialism, that didn't prevent us from working with / supporting them, and Reagan did absolutely work closely with Nimeiry and Egypt to counter Gaddafi in Libya, the triple coalition was a cornerstone of our foreign policy in the area. Of course we didn't align perfectly with him (we didn't with Mubarak either) which is why, when the time came, both presidencies publicly supported "democratic" reforms / transitions, particularly when the militaries of both states stepped in to enforce it.

[noviapriani]

I should also point out I think it will be very chaotic if the infighting in the House of Saud starts while Obama is still in power. Perhaps it's bias, but I don't think he has a game plan to take advantage of events to edge towards an outcome most beneficial to the US. No one could guarantee one, of course.