Officials: Saudis tell US that Iran may attack the kingdom | AP News

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  perrie-halpern  •  4 weeks ago  •  67 comments

By:   AP NEWS

Officials: Saudis tell US that Iran may attack the kingdom | AP News
WASHINGTON (AP) — Saudi Arabia has shared intelligence with American officials that suggests Iran could be preparing for an imminent attack on the kingdom, three U.S. officials said Tuesday. The heightened concerns about a potential attack on Saudi Arabia come as the Biden administration is criticizing Tehran for its crackdown on widespread protests and condemning it for sending hundreds of drones — as well as technical support — to Russia for use in its war in Ukraine.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



WASHINGTON (AP) — Saudi Arabia has shared intelligence with American officials that suggests Iran could be preparing for an imminent attack on the kingdom, three U.S. officials said Tuesday.

The heightened concerns about a potential attack on Saudi Arabia come as the Biden administration is criticizing Tehran for its crackdown on widespread protests and condemning it for sending hundreds of drones — as well as technical support — to Russia for use in its war in Ukraine.

"We are concerned about the threat picture, and we remain in constant contact through military and intelligence channels with the Saudis," the National Security Council said in a statement. "We will not hesitate to act in the defense of our interests and partners in the region."

Saudi Arabia did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Nor did Iran's mission to the United Nations.

One of the officials who confirmed the intelligence sharing described it as a credible threat of an attack "soon or within 48 hours." No U.S. embassy or consulate in the region has issued alerts or guidance to Americans in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere in the Middle East based on the intelligence. The officials were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Asked about reports of the intelligence shared by the Saudis, Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder, the Pentagon press secretary, said U.S. military officials "are concerned about the threat situation in the region."

"We're in regular contact with our Saudi partners, in terms of what information they may have to provide on that front," Ryder said. "But what we've said before, and I'll repeat it, is that we will reserve the right to protect and defend ourselves no matter where our forces are serving, whether in Iraq or elsewhere."

State Department spokesperson Ned Price said America was "concerned about the threat picture," without elaborating.

The Wall Street Journal first reported on the Saudis sharing the intelligence earlier on Tuesday. Iran has alleged without providing evidence that Saudi Arabia and other rivals are fomenting the dissent on its streets by ordinary Iranians.

Of particular ire is protest coverage by Iran International, a London-based, Farsi-language satellite news channel once majority-owned by a Saudi national.

The U.S. and Saudis blamed Iran in 2019 of being behind a major attack in eastern Saudi Arabia, which halved the oil-rich kingdom's production and caused energy prices to spike. The Iranians denied they were behind the attack, but the same triangle-shaped, bomb-carrying drones used in that attack are now being deployed by Russian forces in their war on Ukraine.

The Saudis have also been hit repeatedly in recent years by drones, missiles and mortars launched by the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. Saudi Arabia formed a coalition to battle the Houthis in 2015 and has been internationally criticized for its airstrikes in the war, which have killed scores of civilians.

In recent weeks, the Biden administration has imposed sanctions on Iranian officials for the brutal crackdown on demonstrators after the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini in September after her arrest by Iran's morality police. The administration has also hit Iran with sanctions for supplying drones to Russia for use in its war in Ukraine.

At least 288 people have been killed and 14,160 arrested during the protests, according to the group Human Rights Activists in Iran. Demonstrations have continued, even as the feared paramilitary Revolutionary Guard has warned young Iranians to stop.

Iran already launched a series of attacks targeting Kurdish separatist positions in northern Iraq amid the protests, killing at least 16 people, including an American citizen.

U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia have also been strained after the Riyadh-led alliance of oil producing nations, OPEC+, announced in October that it would cut production by 2 million barrels per day starting in November.

The White House has said it is reviewing its relationship with the Saudis over the move. The administration said the production cut is effectively helping another OPEC+ member, Russia, pad its coffers as it continues its war in Ukraine, now in its ninth month.

White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby on Tuesday reiterated that the administration remains concerned that Iran may also provide Russia with surface-to-surface missiles.

"We haven't seen that concern bear out, but it's a concern we have," Kirby said.

Even as the U.S. and others raise concerns about possible Iranian action, the administration has not ruled out the possibility of reviving the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which was brokered by the Obama administration and scrapped in 2018 by the Trump administration.

The U.S. special envoy to Iran, Robert Malley, said on Monday that the administration was not currently focused on the deal, which has been stalled since August.

Still, Malley refused to declare the deal dead and said the administration "makes no apology" for "trying to do everything we can to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon."

The deal had provided Tehran with billions of dollars in sanctions relief in exchange for the country agreeing to roll back its nuclear program. It includes caps on enrichment and how much material Iran can stockpile and limits the operation of advanced centrifuges needed to enrich.

___

Associated Press writer Jon Gambrell in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, contributed to this report.

All contents © copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1  Ed-NavDoc    4 weeks ago

That would be a very stupid move on Iran's part.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
1.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1    4 weeks ago

Yeah....but this is how shit escalates into global conflict.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.1.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1    4 weeks ago

True.

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
2  Revillug    4 weeks ago

My initial reaction is to cue up the world's tiniest violin for the thought that the regime that killed Jamal Khashoggi might be attacked by the regime that beat Mahsa Amini to death.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Revillug @2    4 weeks ago

By western standards, it's always been a savage part of the world.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2  devangelical  replied to  Revillug @2    4 weeks ago

tell bonesaw to call up his new oil pal putin for some military help...

sounds like the perfect time to renegotiate some long term saudi oil production and pricing contracts that will kneecap big oil in the US and benefit consumers here. otherwise, let these sheet wearing fucks annihilate each other and then go in when the dust settles and take what we want. 

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
2.2.1  Revillug  replied to  devangelical @2.2    4 weeks ago
let these sheet wearing fucks annihilate each other and then go in when the dust settles and take what we want. 

I see most of the people living under these regimes as victims.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
3  Buzz of the Orient    4 weeks ago

Not good timing for the Saudis to cut back on its oil production, and then expecting the USA to defend them. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3    4 weeks ago

That may be exactly why Iran chose this time.

The Saudis wouldn't help stupid Joe Biden and Joe is just idiotic enough to let Iran attack them.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    4 weeks ago

it's going to be funny when we find out that bonesaw partnered with trump to interfere in our midterm elections by playing games with oil production.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

I'll be hear to see how much laughing you do next Tuesday night.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  devangelical @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

Going to be even more funny watching Democrats cry over Trump after midterm losses. 

"But Trruuummmmppppp!!!!!!" Why don't they care about Trruuummmmppppp!!!!! We lost because of Trruuummmmppppp!!!!!!"

Democrats will forever remain fucking clueless.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.4  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.2    4 weeks ago

besides the spelling, I'll be laughing at trumpsters whining about a lack of results in states where they've hindered the vote tabulation process in an election that they claim is already rigged. even if the fascists prevail in the midterms, tax cuts for the rich and revenge politics won't help them in '24.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.3    4 weeks ago
Going to be even more funny watching Democrats cry over Trump after midterm losses. 

"But Trruuummmmppppp!!!!!!" Why don't they care about Trruuummmmppppp!!!!! We lost because of Trruuummmmppppp!!!!!!"

Democrats will forever remain fucking clueless.

Many of them can't even hold a conversation without blurting out "TRUMP!".

Think they (or their loyal voters) will realize Trump isn't on the ballot this month anywhere?

Democrats have shot themselves in the foot. Repeatedly.

Choosing to ignore issues voters have said are most important to them, claiming credit for 40 year highs in inflation, claiming crime isn't a problem, open borders, what could possibly go wrong for them?

LMAO!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.6  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.2    4 weeks ago
I'll be hear to see how much laughing you do next Tuesday night.

hear this ...

... and this

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @3.1.1    4 weeks ago
it's going to be funny when we find out that bonesaw partnered with trump to interfere in our midterm elections by playing games with oil production.

Wild-assed conspiracy theory #1899182

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1.8  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    4 weeks ago

Oh, come on Vic. Anyone can see that this would be a good time to renegotiate with the Saudis. We have bases there and they are not stupid.

It is a bit of a tangled web though. The Saudis are in OPEC+ so that would make them together with the Russians. On the other hand, they need us for defense. 

Oh what a tangled web...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.1.9  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.8    4 weeks ago
Oh, come on Vic. Anyone can see that this would be a good time to renegotiate with the Saudis

Do you want them to pump more oil to reduce the price and support the world burning even more of this filthy fuel than it already does?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    4 weeks ago

Too bad 'quid pro quo' is so frowned upon. Seems like a perfect time for a little of it. A little protection for a little oil.  

Oh, never mind, we can't be seen begging for more fossil fuels, the climate-change activists will go apeshit crazy.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
3.1.11  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.10    4 weeks ago
A little protection for a little oil.  

For a lot of Oil........as Brandon Demanded already !

Defense for Oil, Will be as good as Obama's " Destroy a nation " for Oil  was !

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
3.1.12  charger 383  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.9    4 weeks ago

YES!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1.13  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.9    4 weeks ago
Do you want them to pump more oil to reduce the price and support the world burning even more of this filthy fuel than it already does?

Hummm interesting question, coming from someone who has never indicated that he actually is concerned with that issue.

To be totally honest, I am very conflicted. I do think that we need to get off the junk. On the other hand, we are not quite ready for that, and people have to make ends meet, so high gas prices are a killer right now. It seems to me that people are short sighted, but it also seems to me that where we are at, people need oil. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1.14  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @3.1.11    4 weeks ago
Defense for Oil, Will be as good as Obama's " Destroy a nation " for Oil  was !

I do believe that it was Bush 2 who started that, and Obama who continued. The devil is in the details.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
3.1.15  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.14    4 weeks ago
I do believe that it was Bush 2 who started that, and Obama who continued. The devil is in the details.

Did Obama have to do what he did claiming it was all about being a "humanitarian intervention" and nothing more ?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1.16  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @3.1.15    4 weeks ago

Did Bush do nation-building and nothing more?

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
3.1.17  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.16    4 weeks ago
Did Bush do nation-building and nothing more?

Is That what Obama did ?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1.18  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @3.1.17    4 weeks ago

Is that what Bush did?

See, we can both play that game. 

Why not state the non-partisan facts? Neither president did what they said they were going to do. That makes them equally wrong.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
3.1.19  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.18    4 weeks ago
Why not state the non-partisan facts?

Did Obama do this with his Policy:

Nation-building:

 constructing or structuring a  national identity  using the power of the  state .  Nation-building aims at the unification of the people within the state so that it remains politically stable and viable in the long run.

At least Bush got Folks "Voting" for themselves.

Obama just "Stole" ..... Oil for us and our Allies, And left Total Chaos Behind in his wake, with no way to even try to"Fix It"  !

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1.20  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @3.1.19    4 weeks ago
At least Bush got Folks "Voting" for themselves.

And destroyed their country, while Haliburton made a ton of money.

Wow you really can't stop being partisan

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
3.1.21  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.20    4 weeks ago
And destroyed their country

That happened under Obama !

Ever hear of the JV Team/ISIS that took over Iraq ?

Wow, Talk about being partisan !

 
 
 
independent Liberal
Freshman Quiet
3.1.22  independent Liberal  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.18    4 weeks ago

I find the George Bush Barrack Obama phenomena truly astonishing. These guys tried to convince us how different they were from one another but now after their administrations the parallels are extraordinary. They have become close friends, you could seat them together for any event and they'd be happy.

The Bush wars were a disaster, his domestic policy was not a conservative domestic policy at all.  Obama campaigned as a reformer, he too made abhorrent mistakes with the wars and his domestic policy certainly wouldn't draw interest from today's democrat.

Conservatives defend his wars, that is surprising after all we are afforded to know. Obama continued the wars with a fury and Conservatives complain about that. Both these men created and continued a complex high tech surveillance state on it's own citizens and not a complaint from either of these groups. Bush comes out against trump and Democrats embrace him for it. I curious love affair for certain.

Funny stuff.

I don't care who started the war or who continued the war. America lost big, they were mistakes. Barrack Obama wasn't a liberal, sorry no pass, his domestic policy was garbage.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1.23  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @3.1.21    4 weeks ago

I'd be partisan if I agreed with one and not the other. You are trying to make a case for Bush and fail for Obama. 

And history shows you are wrong.... but whatever.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
3.1.24  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.23    4 weeks ago
but whatever.

Roger !

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.2  Ronin2  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3    4 weeks ago

Never stopped the US from doing what was not in our best interests before.

We are damn stupid foreign policy wise when our career politicians and diplomats think they are acting in our best interests; much the less when we at in someone else's like Libya (French and British oil contracts) and Ukraine (NATO countries that can't- make that won't- defend themselves from the inept Russian military).

The Saudis should be able to handle Iran on their own; but they don't have as many hard line zealots willing to fight.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
3.2.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2    4 weeks ago
"Never stopped the US from doing what was not in our best interests before."

I agree, we've seen enough examples of that.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
3.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3    4 weeks ago

But the Democrats are desperately searching for SOMETHING to distract from their shitty performance of the last 2 years.  

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
3.3.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3    4 weeks ago

I don't have a clue about what they could do to save their asses next week.  I don't think they'll start a war, but I bet it's gone through their minds. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
3.3.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.3.1    4 weeks ago

There isn't a damn thing they could do to save themselves.  I can't rule a war out.  Afterall, they have gotten us quasi involved in the war between Ukraine and Russia.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
4  Drinker of the Wry    4 weeks ago

Last month, Irans’s Shura council reported that around 50,000 foreign intelligence agents were causing the riots and unrest.

Sayyed Ali Khamenei said "I say explicitly that these riots and this insecurity were a design by the US and the occupying, fake Zionist regime  and those who are paid by them, and some traitorous Iranians abroad helped them."

Two weeks ago, the Revolutionary Guard Corps warned Saudi Arabia to stop supporting the riots. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @4    4 weeks ago

Khamenei and his cronies really are just totally batshit crazy. Big problem is those batshit crazy people are the ones in power and do not care how much innocent blood they have to spill to remain in power.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5  Nerm_L    4 weeks ago

Isn't this just another day in the Middle East?  We already know the United States is not going to fight Iran.  So, what's the point of beating war drums?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6  TᵢG    4 weeks ago

If this is true and the attack significant, then we have yet another example of a tyrant (Ali Khamenei) with absurd levels of power fucking things up.   Will a troll attempt to defend this tyrant by claiming he was 'forced to' attack Saudi Arabia?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7  Tacos!    4 weeks ago

Happy to help. I just need gasoline to go back to $1.50.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
7.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tacos! @7    4 weeks ago

Amen!

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
8  Kavika     4 weeks ago

SA should be able to defend itself. It has some of the finest US weapons systems in the world. Abrams tanks, Thadd and Patriot missiles systems, F16 and other types of jet fighters attack helicopters, and a large order of F35.

M777 155mm howitzers, The French 155mm Ceaser self-propelled artillery.

 
 
 
shona1
Junior Participates
8.1  shona1  replied to  Kavika @8    4 weeks ago

Morning..my first thought was..

The Saudis are big enough and uglier enough to look after themselves as the saying goes..

And let them get on with it..

Slightly off topic..see the US is sending some long range bombers our way.. excellent..

And the Chinese melt down beginith...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Kavika   replied to  shona1 @8.1    4 weeks ago

Six B 52s are to be stationed near Darwin at the RAAF base at Tinsdale.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
8.1.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Kavika @8.1.1    4 weeks ago

Yep, and the Chinese are fit to be tied over that one. Those BUFF's are within easy range of China and their precious man made island fighter strips in the South China Sea and elsewhere. China knows it and it scares the crap out of them.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
8.1.3  Kavika   replied to  Ed-NavDoc @8.1.2    4 weeks ago

I'm sure that it does scare them, but that is what they are designed to do and they do it very well. 

It's hard to imagine that the first B52 came off the line in 1954. They have outlived damn near every light or heavy bomber the US has ever used.

They remind me of the various iterations of the Spooky/Puff the Magic Dragon the AC130 gunship. They have been in use starting in Vietnam.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
8.1.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Kavika @8.1.3    4 weeks ago

Yep, the last BUFF rolled off the production line,a B-52H model, in 1962. The young pilots flying the BUFF today are flying aircraft their grandfathers probably flew. 

 
 
 
shona1
Junior Participates
8.1.5  shona1  replied to  Kavika @8.1.1    4 weeks ago

Yeah the usual BS about it's not in our best interests and they are all about peace and co operation...

So we will be flavour of the month again...it had gone quiet for awhile...so it was a bit boring..

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
8.1.6  Kavika   replied to  Ed-NavDoc @8.1.2    4 weeks ago

Another area that is a problem is the rare earth metals which at the moment China dominates. Quietly the US and Australia have been working on a different supply chain that would probably be the US/Australia/Japan for the moment. Contracts have been signed and the site are being prepared to be built.

The same thing is taking place in the chip industry. Taiwan is going to build a plant in the US and there are 3 other plants in the planning stages, CA. AZ and OH. I believe.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
8.1.7  Kavika   replied to  Ed-NavDoc @8.1.4    4 weeks ago

It's not necessary to remind me of how old I am, Doc....LOL

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
8.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Kavika @8    4 weeks ago

Especially if SA has been provided with the precision Excaliber 155 mm round for their M777 towed howitzers and their M109 Paladin self propelled howitzer system. 

 
 
 
independent Liberal
Freshman Quiet
9  independent Liberal    4 weeks ago

Saudi Arabia is now allied with Russia, that is who is selling them their weapons now. Call Vladimir Putin and share your fears with them.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
9.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  independent Liberal @9    4 weeks ago

You really should do better research. The article you are quoting is from August of 2021 and never went past a symbolic gesture on the part of the Saudi's. A multi billion dollar weapons deal with Russia fizzled out. Saudi's are not allied with Russia except in Russia purchasing oil. The biggest weapons suppliers to Saudi Arabia are the US, UK, and France. About the only arms from Russia are small arms.

 
 
 
independent Liberal
Freshman Quiet
9.1.1  independent Liberal  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @9.1    4 weeks ago

It doesn't change anything, they funded planes flying in to towers. They should get a recording when they call the Whitehouse for assistance.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
9.1.2  Kavika   replied to  Ed-NavDoc @9.1    4 weeks ago

I agree with you on SA not selling weapons to Russia but there are a few other dangers that exist, one is the de facto leader of SA, Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud and the second dating back to 2016 the history and the oil connection with Russia now being part of OPEC plus.

Russia showing in Ukraine (bad) and their weapons and their army must have SA thinking, WTF Russia is a paper tiger plus the fact that Russia is now getting much closer with Iran and dreaded enemy of SA again must have the SA's thinking once again, WTF.

This is a link to a very good article on SA and Russia, it's long but well worth reading and very recent as of Oct. 2022.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
9.1.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  independent Liberal @9.1.1    4 weeks ago

That was Bin Laden that funded that not the Saudi government.

Nice attempt at deflection from your original statement instead of just admitting your info was in error. No one would have faulted you for that.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
9.1.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Kavika @9.1.2    4 weeks ago

Good post. I appreciate you expanding on things I missed. Yes, on the world stage Russia's military strength is a pale shadow of it's cold war strength. Russia is coming to rely more and more on the Wagner Group for troops as well as Iraqi commando units. My feeling is that Russia is eventually cutting it's own throat militarily by placing too much faith in non Russian  foreign troops to fight it's battles just like Nazi Germany did in WW II when they lost so many troops on the Eastern Front.

My thanks for the article and will read it at the earliest opportunity.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.1.5  devangelical  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @9.1.3    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
9.1.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @9.1.5    4 weeks ago

The Bin Laden Family was from Yemen and not royals.  Osama He was banished from Saudi Arabia in 1992, and lost his Saudi citizenship in 1994.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
9.1.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9.1.6    4 weeks ago

Yep.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
9.1.8  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  independent Liberal @9.1.1    4 weeks ago

Did Obama know that when he provided them the big weapons deals?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
9.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  independent Liberal @9    4 weeks ago
Saudi Arabia is now allied with Russia

Allied?  How, treaties, what?

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
10  Kavika     4 weeks ago

Wahhabism is the largest sect in SA and very violent.  The DOJ has said the following about it,

Wahhabism is a distinct, ultraradical form of Islamism that is the main source ofviolence in the world today. (2003)

Are members of the Saudi Royal family members, I do not know and I'm sure that if they were they would deny it. Osama bin Laden was not a member of the sect but followed many of their teachings. ISIS are followers of the Wahhabi sect.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
10.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Kavika @10    4 weeks ago

Yep, the Wahhabi sect gives new meaning to the word intolerant as regards other Muslim sects.

 
 

Who is online

Vic Eldred


26 visitors