Iran says Saudi 'attack' on Yemen endangers region

[Bosonic]

Source: AFP

KUWAIT CITY: Iran warned Tuesday that the Saudi "attack" on Yemen endangered the whole region, calling for an immediate halt to the military operation against Shiite rebels.

"The fire of war in the region from any side... will drag the whole region to play with fire. This is not in the interest of the nations in the region," Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian said.

"We strongly object to the military solution in Yemen. We believe that the Saudi military attack against Yemen is a strategic mistake," Abdollahian told reporters on the sidelines of a Syria donors conference in Kuwait.

"Military operations must stop immediately" to open the way to a "political solution," he said.

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Mar-31/292813-iran-says-saudi-attack-on-yemen-endangers-region.ashx

[JonLP24]

1. It certainly does

It wouldn't be a bad day the day the 'House of Saud' is overthrown but I like those 2 words a lot -- a "political solution". I just hope he applies that consistently in countries such as Syria & Iraq.

Off topic but related but I found it interesting

Who determines Iran's foreign policy?

In 2013, during his presidential campaign, Hassan Rouhani voiced a rather unusual and unprecedented argument. At a news conference, in response to a journalist, he said, “You say that the president and his government do not have any say in foreign policy and [only] the supreme leader does. But [the reality] is not like that.”

In his argument, Rouhani highlighted the differences between the foreign policies of different administrations as evidence that, while Ayatollah Khamenei holds authority over all three branches of the state, presidents and their administrations do influence foreign policy. In remarking that “the leader [Khamenei] has been the same,” he raised the question that if administrations are a non-factor, how can one explain the differing foreign policies from one president to the next?

During Hashemi Rafsanjani’s presidency (1989-1997), he made numerous gestures toward the United States — toward Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton — all the while Khamenei supported the doctrine of “the West minus the United States.”

During Reformist Mohammad Khatami’s presidency (1997-2005), reconciliatory foreign policies were pursued with even greater zeal. Iran cooperated closely with the Americans in toppling the Taliban and the establishment of the new Afghan government.

The most glaring conciliatory move came in 2003, when Iran, informally through Swiss Ambassador to Tehran Tim Guldimann, offered the United States a grand bargain that aimed to solve the two countries’ disputes on all fronts.

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/03/iran-khamenei-decisions-snsc.html#ixzz3VyJR1cpg

[Coventina]

2. Hoo-boy....

[starroute]

3. Who put the quotation marks around "attack"?

The AFP writers, presumably -- but it's part of a trend of undermining any statement that mainstream journalism might find embarrassing by casting it as a partisan allegation instead of simple fact.

When you start intervening in another country's internal conflicts and carrying out air strikes on refugee camps, that's an attack even if you don't yet have troops on the ground. It's an attack when the US does it, and it's an attack when the Saudis do it. And Iran is simply using the most accurate descriptive term.

[FBaggins]

4. Yes and no

It is an "attack", but it isn't an "attack on Yemen"- That's the Iranian spin that the Houthis are the legitimate government now.

[Xithras]

6. One could argue that Yemen hasn't had a "legitimate" government since 1994.

When Saleh took power in 1994, he quickly took on the role of military strongman until he finally stepped down during the Arab Spring in 2011. Hadi, who was Saleh's vice president and right hand man, took power in a staged election in 2012 in which he made sure that he was the only official candidate on the ballot. It was announced the next day that he'd won with 99.8% of the vote. He apparently studied democracy at the same school as Putin and Kim Jong-un. Even Saleh, with his fake democracy, usually tried to keep his margins to about 50% and allowed some token opponents on the ballot. Saleh's son ran, and still runs, the military and police forces in the country (though the Houthi's have now largely decimated those forces).

When fighting broke out across Yemen after the election, Hadi agreed to a UN brokered ceasefire in which he'd step down and hand over power in 2014. It's now 2015. He didn't step down.

This is the guy we're fighting FOR.

[JonLP24]

8. Thank you

Yemen's former government made a Yemen a top 5 corrupt country, widely regarded as a kleptocracy.

[FBaggins]

11. That still doesn't make attacking the Houthis an attack on the country

This is the guy we're fighting FOR.

I don't think we're fightin for anyone. The US sent a little aid to combat terroist groups (and garner intelligence)... but the current struggles involve local countries, not the US.

[Xithras]

14. The U.S. is providing intelligence and logistical support to the Saudi's.

We're also identifying specific targets for them to strike. While our jets and soldiers aren't doing the actual fighting, we're certainly part of the alliance fighting to reinstate Yemen's illegitimate ruler.

Considering that the Houthi's are actually the Zaydi's, the native North Yemeni's who controlled their own homeland for a thousand years until Egypt invaded and defeated them in the 1960's, one could easily argue that an attack on them is an attack on the native Yemeni's to further the sociopolitical interests of the regions other powers. It's imperialism of the worst sort.

[FBaggins]

16. Intelligence sharing is not the same thing as "fighting for"

We've been using them to garner intelligence on AQAP for some time.

Considering that the Houthi's are actually the Zaydi's

That's a pretty large oversimplification. The Houthis are from the Zaidi sect, to be sure, but they don't represent the totality of zaidism. Going back centuries, there have been zaidi groups with a local focus, and others that supported rival imams in Iran.

the native North Yemeni's who controlled their own homeland for a thousand years

I think the Ottoman Empire would beg to differ.

[Xithras]

18. They were a vilayet in the Ottoman empire.

But they had their own rulers and generally did their own thing. So long as they weren't rebelling and weren't interfering with Ottoman trade across the Red Sea, the Ottomans pretty much left them alone...and for good reason. An Egyptian general in the Ottoman army once commented that sending troops to Yemen was like throwing salt into the ocean...they just melt away and vanish. Ottoman control over Sana'a often amounted to little more than an agreement to by the Yemeni's to fly the Ottoman flag in exchange for ending the various bloody wars between the two.

[JackRiddler]

10. Yeah, surely it's just a liberation

Bomb some cities, kill some people - how is that an attack?!

[FBaggins]

12. Not sure that you read what you replied to.

It clearly IS an attack. It just isn't clear that it's an attack "on Yemen"... rather than on a terrorist group attempting to take over Yemen.

[JackRiddler]

19. It's entirely clear who the master terrorists are.

That would be the "monarchs" in Riyadh. Always have been, with full backing from Washington.

[Baclava]

5. It might be a "strategic mistake" - but the shit is hitting the fan anyway

Arab Nations to Form Military Force to Counter Iran and Islamist Extremists

CAIRO — The Arab states said on Sunday that they had agreed to form a combined military force to counter both Iranian influence and Islamist extremism, a gesture many analysts attributed in large part to their drive for more independence from Washington.

The agreement came as American and other Western diplomats in Lausanne, Switzerland, were racing to beat a self-imposed deadline of Tuesday to reach a deal with Iran that would restrict its nuclear program in exchange for the removal of economic sanctions. In response, Saudi Arabia and other American allies in the region have made clear that they are seeking to bolster independent regional security measures because they see the proposed accord as a betrayal of Washington’s commitment to their security.

Regardless of Iran’s nuclear program, they complain, the deal would do nothing to stop Iran from seeking to extend its influence around the region by backing favored factions, as it has done in Lebanon, Iraq, Bahrain and Yemen.

Many of the Arab nations, including Egypt, Jordan and most of the Persian Gulf monarchies, have thrown their support behind a Saudi Arabia-led campaign of airstrikes to counter advances by the Iranian-backed Houthi movement in Yemen; Washington is providing only intelligence and logistical support, but Saudi Arabia is leading the bombing while Egypt, with the largest Arab army, has pledged to send ground troops “if necessary.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/30/world/middleeast/arab-leaders-agree-on-joint-military-force.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

[gordianot]

7. The real threat of a nuclear armed Iran is a nuclear armed Middle East with an Arab coalition.

Add Israel into the mix the world could see a three way split like the later stages of the Cold War; NATO vs Warsaw Pact vs China. Today there are just too many hostiles who have no real experience with the dangerous toys.

[Baclava]

9. Speaking of nukes - 'Pakistan weighs up joining Saudi coalition against Houthi rebels in Yemen'

Defence minister Khawaja Asif flies in to Riyadh for talks as fears grow that backing military intervention could exacerbate Pakistan’s Sunni-Shia tensions

The prospect that Islamabad could send troops emerged last Thursday when Saudi Arabia announced that it had agreed to join the coalition of Muslim states, which includes Egypt and Kuwait, aiming to stem the advance of the Houthi forces that have seized large swathes of Yemen.

On Tuesday, Sharif said Pakistan “considers the security of the holy land of the utmost importance”. He also warned that “violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Saudi Arabia would evoke a strong reaction from Pakistan”.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/31/pakistan-talks-saudi-arabia-coalition-houthi-rebels-yemen

[gordianot]

13. I forgot also add India into the mix.

You have to admit Nukes get more attention.

[Baclava]

15. yep...and you know the Saudi's can always buy what they need from Pakistan to nuke up

As U.S. and Iran Seek Nuclear Deal, Saudi Arabia Makes Its Own Moves

CAIRO — As America talks to Iran, Saudi Arabia is lashing out against it.

The kingdom, Iran’s chief regional rival, is leading airstrikes against an Iranian-backed faction in Yemen; backing a blitz in Idlib, Syria, by jihadists fighting the Iranian-backed Assad regime; and warning Washington not to allow the Iranian-backed militia to capture too much of Iraq during the fight to roll back the Islamic State, according to Arab diplomats familiar with the talks.

Through Egypt, a major beneficiary of Saudi aid, the kingdom is backing plans for a combined Arab military force to combat Iranian influence around the region. With another major aid recipient, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia is also expected to step up its efforts to develop a nuclear bomb, potentially setting off an arms race in the region.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/31/world/middleeast/saudis-make-own-moves-as-us-and-iran-talk.html?_r=1

[gordianot]

17. You would almost think this would deserve a letter from the geniuses in the American Congress.

Not sure what it would say other than buy from the U.S. As I recall the F-16 can deliver a tactical nuke not sure about the F-15 but who knows what hardware is already available? Some years ago I read some scenarios that a nuclear war in the Middle East could be a free for all. The super powers have had decades to provide hardware and the Israeli arsenal is not exactly home made. Right now American oil reserves are at capacity.