WAR 11-04-2017-to-11-10-2017___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

Warm Wisconsin

Easy as 3.141592653589..
Saudi Arabia tells its citizens to leave Lebanon immediately


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-saad-hariri-safety-iran-latest-a8046116.html
Saudi Arabia has ordered its citizens out of Lebanon amid skyrocketing tensions between their two governments.

A brief statement carried by the state-run Saudi Press Agency called on all Saudis living in or visiting Lebanon to depart, and warned against travel to the country.

"Due to the circumstances in the Lebanese Republic, the kingdom asks its citizens who are visiting or residing" in the country to leave it as soon as possible, a Saudi Foreign Ministry source quoted by the agency said.

Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri shocked his country Saturday when he announced in a televised statement out of Saudi Arabia that he was resigning. He has not been seen in Lebanon since.

He said his country had been taken hostage by the militant group Hezbollah, a partner in his coalition government and a major foe of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia says it considers Hezbollah's participation in the Lebanese government an "act of war" against the kingdom.

Lebanese President Michel Aoun has said he will not consider the premier's resignation until the two meet in person.

This app can teach you Spanish in just 3 weeks
Babbel
Best Mattresses For People Who Can't Sleep
New Mattresses | Sponsored Links
Who Says Playing Video Games Is a Waste of Time?
WSJ for TAGG Six Capital
by Taboola Sponsored Links
Also on Thursday, Mr Hariri's political party called for his immediate return to Lebanon.

Following a meeting of his Saudi-aligned Future Party in Beirut on Thursday, the party issued a statement saying it was "necessary" for Hariri to return "to restore Lebanon's dignity and respect."

The statement read by former Prime Minister Fuad Saniora seemed to indicate that Mr Hariri is being held in Saudi Arabia against his will.

Mr Hariri resigned his post abruptly on Saturday in a strange, pre-recorded speech.

In his absence, Lebanon has been awash with speculation the 47-year old prime minister may be held against his will in Saudi Arabia. Saudi officials have denied Mr Hariri is under house arrest.

AP and Reuters
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...dle-east/ar-BBEMwl9?li=AA4Zpp&ocid=spartandhp

Saudi Arabia and Iran Battle for Power in the Middle East

NBC News
Vivian Salama
9 hrs ago

WASHINGTON — Saudi Arabia's order for its citizens to evacuate Lebanon is the latest ominous signal in an escalating confrontation between the Middle East's chief regional rivals, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The two nations have long fought proxy wars against each other, but many fear that the newly empowered Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is looking to assert Saudi Arabia's regional dominance at any cost. The conflict heated up last year when Saudi Arabia executed a Shiite cleric and then severed diplomatic ties with Iran.

Now the Saudis are publicly airing their disapproval with Iran's chief foreign affiliate, Hezbollah, which has significant representation in Lebanon's parliament and has asserted its influence in neighboring Syria.

Experts, however, don't think a regional conflagration is imminent. "The Saudis have always thought the wrong solution for their problem with Iran and now their hope is the Trump administration will come in and tilt the balance in their favor," said Ali Vaez, the Iran project director at Crisis Group. "It's unlikely to change Iran's regional policy — Iran will continue to support its allies and proxies in the region — but it's unlikely to result in a major conflict."

Even if the conflict doesn't boil over, there is plenty at stake for the U.S. and the world in the battle between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran. There's the price of oil, which rises during crises — an ironic benefit to the belligerents, who have some of the world's largest oil reserves — and there's the regional balance of power.

Who's in Charge Here?

The Trump administration has already chosen sides. It's backing the Saudi program of change, and doing what it can to undermine the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran. Trump dubbed the Iranian government a "fanatical regime" and warned of a "sinister vision for the future." His rhetoric was music to the ears of Arab officials, in Riyadh and around the Gulf, who had viewed the Obama administration as complacent toward their longtime foe and neighbor to the East.

Many of Washington and Riyadh's issues with Iran are really guilt-by-association. Lebanon's Hezbollah, increasingly a leading political force in the country, receives financial and logistical support from Iran and also supports militant Shiite groups in Yemen and Iraq.

The U.S. wants to contain Hezbollah's militant faction, which it and its Arab League partners have dubbed a terrorist organization. Once lauded in the Arab world as a heroic resistance movement that stood up to Israel, Hezbollah has seen its popularity plummet among Sunni Muslims because of its staunch support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

But efforts to root out Hezbollah have been complicated by its formal role in the Lebanese government and effective control over the country's south. Lebanon's Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri abruptly resigned last weekend while in Riyadh, saying that his life was in danger. He said Hezbollah has created a "state within a state" in Lebanon and was holding the country hostage, and that Iran was meddling in Arab affairs.

Tensions reached a new level this week when both Saudi Arabia and Bahrain ordered their citizens to leave Lebanon.

The U.S. also shares the Saudi regime's goals for the Arabian peninsula. It wants to defeat the Sunni terror groups in Yemen -al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the terror group's most potent affiliate, and an emerging ISIS presence. Both the U.S. and the Saudis want to contain the country's Iran-backed Houthi rebels who have growing influence in the country.

The Saudis began striking the Houthis in 2014. However, unlike the U.S., which uses precision technology for its strikes against al-Qaeda, the Saudi campaign has been anything but discrete, devastating the country and plunging it into a deep humanitarian disaster. Its war against the Houthis has made the Saudis even more unpopular inside Yemen than they already were — and cost the Saudi treasury a fortune.

U.S. is not the only would-be power broker consulting with the new Saudi leadership team. French President Emmanuel Macron arrived Thursday in Riyadh for meetings amid the rising regional tensions. And the Saudis have hedged their bets, meeting with Russia's energy minister in Riyadh this week and with Vladimir Putin in Moscow last month.

Still, the synergy between the Trump administration and the reconfigured Saudi leadership has observers worried whether it will fan the flames. "The U.S.-Saudi convergence of policies very concerning," said Rami Khoury, a professor of Middle East politics at the American University in Beirut. "They've been brought together by four or five policy aims: protect Israel, beat back the terrorists, push back Iran and Hezbollah, keep the oil flowing, and promote business deals all under the umbrella of autocratic Arab leaders."
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2...entional-war/142451/?oref=defenseone_today_nl

Can Two Nuclear Powers Fight a Conventional War?

The Pentagon just wargamed that scenario as part of its effort to determine what it needs for 21st-century deterrence.

By Marcus Weisgerber
Read bio
November 9, 2017

As the U.S. military reviews the makeup of its nuclear arsenal, among the questions being asked is: Can two nuclear powers fight a conventional war without going*nuclear?

Just last week, this scenario was among the mock battles when U.S. Strategic Command ran its annual Global Thunder nuclear wargame, Army Brig. Gen. Greg Bowen, the command’s deputy director of global operations, said Thursday at the Defense One*Summit.

“It gets into a very difficult calculus,” Bowen said. “It’s clearly a place that we don’t want to*go.”

That’s because when one country begins to lose a conventional battle, there is a temptation to use those nuclear*weapons.

“If you’re talking about India and Pakistan, I think every scenario people play is that it goes nuclear,” said Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, who joined Bowen for an onstage discussion. “You have a nuclear war in South Asia, that’s a global event. That will affect us and not just*economically.”

During a six-day trip to four Air Force nuclear bases last month, Gen. David Goldfein, the service’s chief of staff, asked airmen to think about new ways that nuclear weapons could be used for deterrence, or even*combat.

“I’ve challenged…Air Force Global Strike Command to help lead the dialogue, help with this discussion about ‘What does conventional conflict look like with a nuclear element?’ and ‘Do we respond as a global force if that were to occur?’ and ‘What are the options?’” Goldfein said. “How do we think about it — how do we think about deterrence in that*environment?”

Cirincione warned that nuclear weapons could be used as a form of*de-escalation.

“The Russians have this new theory *— and we’re starting to copy it — that in a conventional war that they start to lose, they will escalate to de-escalate,” Cirincione said. “They will use a nuclear weapon first in order to show us how serious it is, figuring that we will then de-escalate. I think the odds of that happening are quite*small.

“The justification for some of the new nuclear weapons people want — like the nuclear cruise missile — are based on that same theory that we have to be able to use nuclear weapons first to de-escalate,” he said. “It’s hard to*see.”


Marcus Weisgerber is the global business editor for Defense One, where he writes about the intersection of business and national security. He has been covering defense and national security issues for more than a decade, previously as Pentagon correspondent for Defense News and chief editor of ... Full bio

Comments

zvi h Luft**·**45 minutes ago
RATIONAL ACCOMODATION(S) between the MAJOR POWERS is the way to GO...
0 Votes

don huang**·**4 hours ago
Conventional weapons are mainly used to change the facts on the ground, whereas nuclear weapons are meant to keep the present status quo. So de-escalation using the nuclear option is plausible when the situation on the battle ground is every much against the losing side. When two nuclear-armed powers go head to head with each other, there is a very strong likelihood that all options are considered on the table, which invariably means taking the nuclear option. During the Korean War the US military was seriously contemplating using the Atomic bomb on China, a non-nuclear nation then, which clearly shown that a nuclear-armed nation would not hesitate to consider the nuclear option against a non-nuclear nation. In every past war scenario, the US government always said that all options are on the table which includes the unmentionable nuclear option. Given such idiosyncrasy, no nuclear armed nations, at war with the USA in the future, can afford to exclude the nuclear options as a means of de-escalation, failing which to go for the unthinkable MAD option.
-1 Votes

Dodo**·**11 hours ago
In my humble opinion, it is impossible because no state leader can tolerate humiliation. It is unpractical to plan our military force to engage with a major nuclear power (Russia or China) on a large scale conventional war. It is possible to have small conflicts but both sides would immediately control the situation to prevent it escalates.
0 Votes

Duane**·**2 hours ago
Well, your theory got all shot to heck when the US abandoned Vietnam, the result of which was national humiliation after the NVA overran the South. The VN war was was a proxy war between the world's two major nuclear superpowers. Similarly, the Soviets were humiliated when they were finally forced to withdraw from Afghanistan - another proxy war with the United States.
0 Votes

don huang**·**3 hours ago
A direct military conflict between two nuclear armed nations, e.g., India and Pakistan, can be contained in an arm skirmishes within a small area; however, events may quickly turn its ugly heads if the situation persist on the ground for too long. Other intrinsic factors like nation pride / honor, deep historical animosity, temperaments of political leaders and internal politics may well push both nuclear armed nations into the unthinkable.

0 Votes
Henry Filth**·**14 hours ago
There was a whole bunch of interesting stuff on this topic in the late 1950s to early 1970s. Well worth digging out.
0 Votes

Dems_Love_Cornhole**·**15 hours ago
Of course they can...what a stupid question.
0 Votes

007.**·**1 hour ago
AND THE FINAL STUPID ANSWER IS,DRUM ROLL PLEASE.THE JOHN WICK MECHANICAL INCLANATIONPROGRAM.SPECIFICALLY DESIGHNED FOR KIM JONG UN.IS HE BEHIND DOOR NO.1,NO.2,OR NO.3.THE MONTY PYTHON FLYING CIRCUS WILL PREVAIL.MECHANICAL CALCULATED ORCHESTRATED EVENT IS REAL AND PRESENT.AND I WAS NEVER HERE.
0 Votes
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/11/middle-east-nearing-explosion/142421/?oref=d-river

The Middle East Is Nearing an Explosion

Fear is the one thing preventing it—but could also precipitate it.

By Robert Malley
Vice President for policy at the International Crisis Group, The Atlantic
Read bio
November 9, 2017

BEIRUT—Lebanon has long been a mirror for the broader Middle East. The region’s more powerful actors use it, variously, as a venue for their proxy wars, an arena in which to play out the Arab-Israeli conflict, and a testing ground for periodic bouts of Saudi-Iranian coexistence. It’s where the region wages its wars and brokers its temporary truces. This past week, like in so many others, the Middle East has not been kind to*Lebanon.

The news came on November 4 in the form of three back-to-back developments in a mere 10 hours. First, Saad Hariri, Lebanon’s prime minister, announced his resignation. That he made the statement from Riyadh told much of the story; that he delivered it with the genuineness of one forced to read his own prison sentence told the rest. The decision was announced by the Lebanese prime minister but it was made in Saudi Arabia. Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s crown prince and de facto leader, had reason to want it to happen. Saudi-Iranian tensions are rising and bin Salman is determined to depict Tehran as the source of all regional evils. For Hariri to preside over a government that includes Hezbollah fundamentally undercut that core message: It meant allowing one of Riyadh’s closest allies to cooperate with Tehran’s most loyal partner. Hariri as prime minister created the impression that coexistence with Hezbollah and by extension with Iran was possible; his departure is designed to erase any doubt. He was asked to assume the prime ministership a year ago, at a time when the goal was to inoculate Lebanon from Saudi-Iranian rivalry; with him gone, Lebanon now is fully exposed to it. It has joined the camp of Saudi Arabia’s*enemies.

Act two was news that Saudi Arabia had intercepted a missile launched from Yemen and purportedly aimed at Riyadh’s airport. This was not the first missile that the Houthis, a Yemeni rebel group enjoying Iranian and Hezbollah support, had fired at its northern neighbor, but its timing and unprecedented range could make it one of the more consequential. The extent of outside backing to the Houthis is a matter of some debate, though neither U.S. nor Saudi officials harbor any doubt that the dramatic progress in the rebel movement’s ballistic missile program could not have occurred without its two benefactors’ considerable training and help. Like Hariri in his act of self-immolation, Saudi officials quickly and publicly drew a direct line connecting the strike to Iran and Hezbollah; it was, they proclaimed, an act of war for which they held both responsible and to which they would*respond.

Act three was the massive Saudi purge in which over 10 princes and dozens of businessmen and senior officials were put under house arrest. This was bin Salman cleaning house, eliminating any potential competing military, political, economic, or media-related source of power. Combined with earlier moves, this means that he now essentially has gone after every one of the regime’s traditional pillars. Some wonder whether, untested and unseasoned, he might have provoked too many enemies at the same time. What he lacks in experience he more than makes up for in ambition however, and for now he stands precisely in the position he craved: able to do away with years of assumed Saudi passivity and refashion as he sees fit both the Kingdom’s domestic and foreign policies, notably in order to more effectively confront*Iran.

All three developments point in a similar direction: that of an increasingly emboldened and single-minded Saudi leadership eager to work with the U.S. to counter an Iranian threat whose scale it believes was made all the starker by the day’s Yemen-related*events.

Lebanon and the region arguably have seen all this before; a leadership vacuum in the context of rising tensions is nothing new. What*is*new, however, is an unusually apprehensive Israel, an unusually assertive and rash Saudi leadership and, of course, an unusual U.S. president. As for Israel: For months now, it has been sounding alarm bells about Hezbollah’s and Iran’s growing footprint in Syria, and more particularly about the Lebanese movement’s soon-to-be-acquired capacity to indigenously produce precision-guided missiles—a development Israeli officials view as a potential game changer they must*thwart.

As for the new Saudi leadership: Bin Salman is convinced that Iran for too long has viewed Saudi Arabia as a punching bag, and that Saudi Arabia for too long has obliged. He sees Tehran possessing far less money, military equipment, or powerful international allies than Riyadh, yet nonetheless on the ascent, exerting or expanding control over Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut, and Sanaa. He believes that only by more forcefully and aggressively pushing back—whether in Yemen, Iraq, or Lebanon—can Saudi Arabia and its partners halt Iran and turn the tide. And so far he has shown, from the military misadventure in Yemen to the diplomatic misstep of seeking to isolate Qatar, a stronger propensity for getting into crises than for ending*them.

As for the U.S.: Unpredictable and inconstant in so many ways, President Trump has been consistent in one regard at least, which is a belligerency toward Iran that has become the hallmark of his administration’s Mideast policy. U.S. officials evoke his willingness to take action against Iran to restore the U.S. credibility and deterrence he feels his predecessor (who I advised on Mideast matters) frittered away. In this, his approach appears to be very much of a piece with bin Salman’s: dismissive of diplomatic engagement with Tehran and persuaded of the need to establish a new balance of power, making him less likely to check bin Salman’s instincts than to embolden*them.

Few in Lebanon seem to believe an all-out war is imminent, as all three protagonists have cause for self-restraint. The very reason Israel wishes to forcefully strike Hezbollah is the reason it is inhibited from doing so—namely the prospect of a barrage of missiles on its urban centers. Israel possesses far greater ability to inflict pain, but Hezbollah possesses far greater capacity to absorb it, which means that any large-scale Israeli operation runs the risk of being open-ended. Saudi Arabia lacks the ability to directly challenge Iran militarily and must consider the threat of Iranian retaliation on its soil. And in assessing the option of going after Iran or its allies, the U.S. continues to take account of the proximity of Iranian-backed Iraqi Shia militia to American servicemen and women, and the possibility that they could resume their*attacks.

Yet Lebanese, whether affiliated with Hezbollah or others, also seem persuaded that some form of action has become virtually inescapable. The Houthi missile strike was too reckless, Saudi warnings too pointed, Israeli anxiety too great, and U.S. hostility toward Iran and Hezbollah too pronounced for it to be otherwise. To which one might add a broader list: the Trump administration calling into question the Iranian nuclear deal and considering ramping up sanctions against Tehran, which unnecessarily heightens tensions, coupled with the absence of the kind of regular, high-level contact between the two countries that could de-escalate them. More broadly, for the same reason their adversaries are likely to act, Iran and Hezbollah are likely to react: Both sides may wish to avoid a serious confrontation but neither can afford to show it. The question then becomes whether in this context one side’s limited action and another’s limited reaction can stop there or*escalates.

Missing from this picture is any hint of diplomacy—between Iran and Saudi Arabia, Iran and the U.S., or Saudi Arabia and the Houthi; rather, the region faces a free for all in which the only operative restraint on one’s actions is nervousness over what it might provoke. That’s hardly reassuring. Here in Lebanon, people are uncertain about who might take the first strike; who (of Iran or Hezbollah) might be its target; when or where (in Lebanon, Syria, or Iran) it might occur; and what it might look like. But they sense something will happen. And they fear that this time again, the Lebanese mirror inevitably will*shatter.


Robert Malley is vice president for policy at the International Crisis Group. He was the White House coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa and Gulf Region under President Obama. Full bio

Comments

truthfuloneone**·**2 hours ago
All western propagandists do the same mistake once & again to fool Muslims. In no account Saudi Wahhabi/Salafists are Sunni. Saudis try to exploit Sunni world by projecting themselves as Sunni, but don't forget it is Saudi Wahhabis/Salafis who destroyed almost all of Islamic heritage & monuments associated with Prophet Muhammad Sallalahu Wa Alaihi Wa Sallam. Except Saudi Arabia & to some extent Qatar, Saudis are not taken as Sunnis. There is non political parties in Muslim countries calling them Ahle Sunnah Wa Jamaa ( Group of Sunni- followers of Prophet). Secondly western hypocritical leaders are more interested in their own gains than respecting principle of humanity. Saudi Arabia & UAE invaded Yemen without a mandate from UN which is a violation of UN charter. They are bombing indiscriminately killing thousands of civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure. But none of the five veto power countries are taking the seriously in Security Council which easily can stop Saudis from further attacking Yemen in the name of installing a puppet president who according to news report is under house arrest in Saudi Arabia. Saudis, it seems, instead of getting lessons from Syria & Yemen are taking a self destructive path. Let some country come forward to tell Saudis not to cross Rubycon.
0 Votes

Ranger Rick**·**19 hours ago
Its long overdue for us to finish off the Persians.
0 Votes

Duane**·**21 hours ago
Diplomacy has a role, but it also has limits. When one side is already making war on you via proxies (i.e., Hezbollah and the Houthis), eventually you have to fight back or you lose. SA has finally decided to fight back. It's long past time. Let's hope they cut the Iranian mullahs down to size,as Saddam Hussein once did, before we stupidly removed him from the middle east.
0 Votes

Glorious_Cause**·**22 hours ago
Iran is taking over the Middle East and Trump is letting them.
0 Votes

Don Bacon**·**23 hours ago
Israel wants to try again to grab some land from Lebanon but Israel knows that Hezbollah will defeat them again, so in its desperation Israel enlisted despotic tribal Saudi Arabia to help them. It won't work. KSA will continue to drop bombs on the poor Yemenis but they are thugs and that's all they can do.
0 Votes

David Richmand**·**16 hours ago
Israel is not interested in taking territory from Lebanon. As long as there are no rocket or terror attacks coming across the border, they could care less about Lebanon or Syr
0 Votes

Don Bacon**·**1 day ago
"... not the first missile that the Houthis, a Yemeni rebel group enjoying Iranian and Hezbollah support, had fired... " Wrong. From Pat Lang: "The missile battalion of the pro-Salih faction of the Yemeni Army who fired this missile have a long experience of ballistic missiles. They had SCUD when I was Defense Attache there thirty years ago. They have been firing ballistic missiles into Saudi Arabia throughout the present war."
0 Votes
 
Top