I hear the word used that way all the time. People refer to after-market modifications of consumer electronics devices, cars, etc as “tampering with x” all the time. It doesn’t have to hold the negative connotation you do.
I don’t disagree with you on the politics of the situation at all, but on the language usage, you’re loading the word “tamper” with a lot of baggage that native English speakers do not typically associate with the term. There’s not a major connotative difference between “tamper” and “manipulate.” “Tamper” is a slightly stronger term, but not to the extent that choosing one word over the other substantially alters the meaning or implication of the statement.
OPEC was always a weak coalition. Almost every move they agreed upon was followed by cheating by everyone, leaving the Saudis to pick up the slack - either cutting or raising production to hit agreed upon production levels. Given that I understand them saying "fuck you " to the rest of OPEC now.
If armed conflict were to break out (between Iran and SA), could this be the end of the SA monarchy? To me, this would be a big game changer-it might result in a regime far worse than what they have now.
Of course, SA leads the world in head chopping, so maybe a change is in order.
Also don’t forget the trigger to ending diplomatic relations was that the Iranians allowed/encouraged/did not stop a mob from overrunning the Saudi embassy and burning parts of it. You’d think after 35 years of resulting isolation they’d have learned the one thing not kosher in international relations, is invading embassies and violating diplomatic immunity.
(I recall not long after the American embassy in Tehran was overrun, the Soviet one was too. A phone call later, from Moscow, and the Iranian army quickly removed the protesters. One can imagine the content of the phone call…)
the Saudis typically turned their taps up and down to control the supply and hence price of oil. I think they (a) realized the supply side from fracking was too big to let them be the means to balance supply to demand, and (b) every time they reduce production, their customers go elsewhere and it’s harder to lure them back. Screwing over their enemy Iran © and its friend Russia was a bonus of the decision to keep pumping.
Saudi Arabia is a repressive regime, and in the vein of most repressive regimes, when things are tough they think a few example executions will have the desired result. Sometimes it has the opposite effect.
But yes, the house of Saud rulers are still pushing 70 or 80. the next generation in their 50’s would have grown up with a lot more western influence. Whether that will count for anything is anyone’s guess. After all, Bashar Assad was a western-educated eye doctor living in London until just before his dad bit the big one. Some civilizing that did for Syria.
The Saudis are great friends of the U.S. Bandar Bush, close kin to two ex-Presidents, served as Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. for over two decades and also served as head of Saudi Intelligence.
Arab elite are big investors in Carlyle Group, an important American Job Creator, and assisted the U.S. when Carlyle and Halliburton fulfilled Bush’s promise to make the Iraq Invasion profitable for American companies. True, the Saudis fund enemies like al-Qaeda and Daesh, but that’s just good business. Pepsico uses its Frito-Lay division to promote thirst and thereby increase demand for its beverage. Similarly, how could Halliburton and Carlyle Group be spectacularly profitable without a strong al-Qaeda?
You seem to be making the common mistake of thinking that the US is the entire world. Iran was not isolated for 35 years because the incident with the US embassy. Iran had no ties with the US, but there are lots of other countries in the world besides the US. One might argue whether the recent tactic was wise, but it’s a mistake to think that Iran was isolated for 35 years after 1979.
Iran’s Mullah’s managed to piss off a lot more people then just the U.S. Diplomacy has not really been traditionally their thing.
Incidentally, its now fairly clear that the Embassy take over was not authorised by Khomeini, indeed his initial reaction was to order the students out; he only came around to it later.
Yep. And the US was able to put together some pretty meaningful sanctions with Europe, Russia and China over the nuclear issue. But the beef the US had with Iran over the US embassy was pretty much between the US and Iran. Iran was not “isolated” for 35 years, except from the US’s perspective.
This native English speaker understands “tamper” to mean manipulating in a way that is unauthorized, usually in a way that damages the item. And the dictionaries seem to agree. It has a clear negative connotation, whereas “manipulate” is much more contextual as to whether it is negative.
If you are talking a physical object, there is distinct difference. If you’re talking about the market, which we are, I don’t think the difference is significant. Manipulating the market and tampering with the market are both negative.
I agree that “tamper” has negative connotations but Ramira has wasted way too much outrage and pixels over it. Clearly Martin Hyde thinks that Saudi Arabia “manipulating” their oil production is being done to “tamper” with the oil market, which is a perfectly legitimate thing to think.
What was the deal with the executions anyway? Doesn’t Saudi Arabia kill people all the time? What’s so special about these clerics that pissed off Iran so much?
The cleric was part of the Shiite Minority. Saudi Arabia executed 40+ people recently, all or most of whom were considered “terrorists”.
the point is not that “tamper” is negative, it is that the implication that it is unauthorized, you are messing with someone else’s stuff.
If a customer modifies a device in a way
the manufacturer doesn’t want, that tampering.
It has nothing to do with how negative the implications are, and everything to do with your authority over thing adjusted. The Saudis manipulate world oil prices by adjusting their production. But they don’t really “tamper” with either those things.
Anyhow, I have a much better idea of why this cleric matters, although I still wonder why the Saudis thought it a good idea to execute him.
I was under the impression that Saudi Arabia does this all the time, that is, oppress their Shiites in favor of their version of Wahabbi Sunni Islam. Was there any particular significance this cleric had?
He was popular and a goof speaker, and ahe was an outspoken critic of the Saudi government, and a vocal human rights advocate.
Also, explicitly an advocate of political change by nonviolent means.
Pretty good summary here, “Who was Sheik Nimr al-Nimr?”
And Iran leads the world in hanging, essentially breaking necks. Why is Saudi Arabia much worse than Iran, they are similar. Iran is not a great county either.
As for armed conflict in doubt Iran will end the Saudi government. Iran is incapable of overthrowing any country’s government. They couldn’t takedown Saddam Hussein after eight years.
Iranian military marching into Riyadh and overthrowing the Saudi king just does not jive with reality.