Thank you, Ramira. In what way did he defend the shia? Did he lobby for regulations that made their lives easier, or provided legal aid to individuals, or???
I think that Vladimir Putin has cultivated this state of affairs. He has skillfully exploited the diffferences between the two (corrupt) regimes, and his end game is to restore profitable Russian oil production.
Meanwhile, our clueless SOS flies around, lookinmg to “hammer out an agreement”.
He was a cleric who often spoke out against oppression of Shiites in SA. Reading those articles will be clearer than anything Ramira is going to tell you.
Putin has not a thing to do with this, either the Saudi actions or the Iranian ones.
this makes no sense at all, indeed it is the very opposite of what has happened…
So it is a poor grasp of international politics and some internal domestic obsesion that is leading you to make completely nonsense posts.
You have been watching too many James Bond movies, IMHO. While Putin wants oil prices to go up, I doubt he is quite that Macheivellian (sp?). Plus neither Saudi Arabia or Iran are likely to trust Russia anymore than they trust the West.
As to the OP, I will re-state my opinion that this is all part of an overall Sunni-Shia conflict, their answer to the Thirty Years War of 1618-1648. Iraq and Syria are playing to role of the German States, providing many of the soldiers on both sides and absorbing the bulk of the losses, while Iran (playing the Hapsburgs) and Saudi (as Sweden and the German Protestants) use that region as their cockpit, while not severly damaging their own states. Jordan and Lebanon (and Israel, for that matter), are laying low and I expect that they will continue to as long as they can.
The real question is what France and Spain (played by Egypt and Turkey) do. Both have been regional powers in the past and if they get heavily involved in this, things could really go south fast.
In the 1600’s, the US would be like the Mughals and China, distant powers not involved due to slow transportation/communications, but that does not apply today, so they will add to the confusion.
It is an imperfect comparison, I realize, but IMHO it is the closest we can come to a comparison of what is happening there. And considering the 30 Year’s War killed nearly 1/3 of the German population and postponed German unity by 200+ years (and we all know how well that worked out), it will porbably get worse before it gets better.
IMHO as always. YMMV.
or if you were to treat it as a nisba, tiger of the tigre(s).
not that I would think of his name meaning ordinarily.
And what is oil production analogous to in your comparison?
I think your analogy is imperfect enough that making any projections with it is just wanking.
He was no friend of the Saud dynasty, even if he had been the most orthodox Wahabi that would have been true remember Saudi Arabia is made up a collection of formerly independent states which were annexed by one, Najd; and these retain identity. In some ways; this is similar to England’s attempts to occupy the other nations in the British Isle and less about religion.
Still was stupid to behead them and the current problems are a lot bigger now. The Sauds in policy have traditionally been quite careful to avoid outright sectarianism. In the 1960’s and 1970’s they supported the Houthis over the Sunni Aden tribes. King Faisal was best of friends with the Pakistani Shia, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.
What they have done is to become openly sectarian; that is a new and deeply troubling development. It does mean that they lose some potential allies, Pakistan for one. Ditto India
We don’t do it in those cases anymore either.
That’s not what I’m talking about. Those numbers are based on what the price of oil needs to be to meet budgeted expenditures that those countries have allocated funds for, basically that is the level needed to meet those state’s expectations for funding various government programs at a level they desire.
What I’m talking about is the price needed for oil to be extracted profitably, meaning you sell it on an open market for a higher price than the oil cost to extract. Saudi Oil is extremely cheap to extract, I’ve seen estimates that they could still pump some oil profitably at $25-29 a barrel.
What these numbers reflect is the higher amount of state spending Saudi Arabia and Bahrain engage in, because their national budgets are so dependent on oil, and these countries have spent so aggressively to keep their people fat and happy they require a larger price to continue funding their budgets at current levels. But that isn’t the same as their state oil company’s “break even” point. Saudi Aramco can make a profit at prices vastly lower than $100 a barrel, but it needs that level of funding to meet their budget projections because their budgets for several years in advance were written with assumptions of > $100 a barrel oil.
Yes agreed. but recall that the Houthi of the 1960-170s were royalist. now the situation has become difficult as the extremist takfiri salafisme nursed on their exploitation of wahhabite ideology is bouncing back on them. They are trapped in the contradictions of their believing they could ride the most extreme wahhabites to crush the domestic dissent, but now that monster is turning towards its own foster parent, the ibn saud. They are in the trap of their own making and I think they do not know how to get out.
You’re reading a lot into use of the word tamper. Saudi Arabia has a state run oil company so it’s highly appropriate to describe the government’s production activities as tampering, they are tampering with domestic oil production.
Saudi Aramaco is not state run. Its State-owned and yes there is a difference. The state is just the majority share holder.
No, you make excuses - in fact it is extremely prejudiced and in fact nonsensical to use
Tamper, definitions
So what is the meaning of Tamper that makes sense for the Saudi case when it is their own oil and their own oil company?
Or do you want to claim that you write regularly that a Mangement “tampers” with its production when making its decisions?
What butthurt? My emphasis was to point out a fact to a large number of people in the US, who seem to think otherwise. To them Iran = Bad, SA = Good. International politics are never that simple.
I truly doubt the number of people in the U.S. who think Saudi Arabia=Good is particularly large.
Thank you! I should have looked at these sources, which are not behind a pay wall. (Ramira’s was. 
)
Seriously! The US happens to be at war (more or less) with Iran, and allied with Saudi Arabia, but by any ordinary accounting, Saudi Arabia is the “worse” country by US standards. Look at human rights, level of education, the existence of a middle class (or lack thereof), etc.
And both have been supporting terrorism against the US. The Saudis probably not on purpose, but they’ve pumped a lot of money into Wahabi groups that have caused us a lot of problems…
Although, I have a friend in the investment industry who has done a lot of business in Saudi Arabia, and he has very nice things to say about the wealthy men he has done business with. Hmm, I should ask his opinion of this.
I am feeling grossly uneducated about matters middle east. I have a feeling we will need to care what goes on there in the near future, and not just how much oil they are pumping.
It would depend on your position on the markets. I don’t believe in state owned industries like Saudi Aramco, I believe in the free market. I view state owned companies to be tampering. I also believe in a free market in commodities, I view OPEC in general as an illegal cartel that tampers with oil production to try to affect the global price of oil.
These aren’t neutral activities. You can agree/disagree with cartels and state owned companies, this is great debates, by the way–we’re allowed to express our opinions.
But you seemed to impugn a lot of negativity on the word tamper. Tampering is what they’re doing, while I don’t like cartels or state owned enterprises I also don’t get all “hot about them” either, I don’t think the Saudis are bad people for having a state owned oil company or for trying to control the price of oil, I just disagree with it as a strong advocate of free markets.
I didn’t know that, but there is only a thin difference. Majority shareholders can exert control at will over a company they own, that they choose not to is probably why Aramco is run so much better than the state oil company in Venezuela has been run since the Chavistas put all of their political cronies in charge of it instead of seasoned energy professionals.
But thanks for the clarification.