Saudis Lead Push to Isolate Qatar, a Fellow U.S. Ally

The fallout from Monday’s shock move by four U.S. Arab allies to isolate Qatar over its ties to Iran was felt across the region on Monday, as flights were canceled and Qatari stocks plunged the most since 2009.

Saudi Arabia banned all Qatari planes from landing in the kingdom and will bar them from its airspace as of Tuesday, the official Saudi Press Agency reported. Abu Dhabi’s state-owned carrier Etihad Airways and Dubai’s Emirates said they would suspend all flights to and from Qatar’s capital, Doha, from Tuesday, with the U.A.E.’s low-cost carriers Air Arabia and Flydubai also following suit.

The decision by Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt to punish the Gulf Cooperation Council member over its support for Islamist groups -- as well as their key rival, Iran -- pits some of the world’s richest nations in a struggle for regional dominance. Qatar’s population is smaller than Houston’s, but it has a sovereign wealth fund with stakes in global companies from Barclays Plc to Credit Suisse Group. It’s also a home to the forward headquarters of the U.S. military’s central command in the region.

While the escalation is unlikely to affect energy exports from the Gulf, it threatens to have far-reaching effects on Qatar and raises the political risk for the Middle East, a region grappling with wars from Syria to Yemen. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the U.S. stands ready to help defuse the tension..

Qatar for years positioned itself as a mediator of regional conflicts now it is Qatar that is in need of mediation. (Kuwait & Oman may help)

— سÙطا٠سعÙد اÙÙاسÙÙ (@SultanAlQassemi) June 5, 2017

“It’s not in the U.S.’s interest to see the GCC sort of unravel,” Allison Wood, an analyst with Control Risks in Dubai, said. “That would be very destabilizing in a region that’s already very unstable. There are limits to the U.S. giving tacit approval to the kind of pressures that are being applied.”

Defiance

Qatar’s first response struck a defiant tone. The Foreign Ministry called the accusations “baseless” and said they were part of a plan to “impose guardianship on the state, which in itself is a violation of sovereignty.”

Qatar’s QE Index for stocks tumbled 7.3 percent at the close in Doha, the most since 2009. Qatar’s credit risk, measured by credit default swaps, climbed the most globally. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Dubai were also among the worst six performers on the day, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

“There are going to be implications for people, for travelers, for business people. More than that, it brings the geopolitical risks into perspective,” Tarek Fadlallah, the chief executive officer of Nomura Asset Management Middle East, said in an interview to Bloomberg Television. “Since this is an unprecedented move, it is very difficult to see how it plays out.”

The Saudis also accused Qatar of supporting “Iranian-backed terrorist groups” operating in the kingdom’s eastern province as well as Bahrain.

While Qatar maintains diplomatic and economic ties with Iran, it’s not clear how close the two countries are, and none of the statements issued on Monday offered evidence of deep cooperation. Saudi Arabia also accused Qatar of supporting “terrorist groups aiming to destabilize the region,” including the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State and al-Qaeda.

Iran’s Comment

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif stepped into the fray, saying on Twitter that “coercion” would not lead to a solution.

“Neighbors are permanent, geography can’t be changed,” he said.

The five key countries involved in the dispute are U.S. allies, and Qatar has committed $35 billion to invest in American assets. The Qatar Investment Authority, the country’s sovereign wealth fund, plans to open an office in Silicon Valley.

Read More: Why Tiny Qatar Angers Saudi Arabia and Its Allies: QuickTake Q&A

Tillerson, speaking at a news conference in Sydney, said it was important that the Gulf states remain unified and he encouraged the parties to address their differences. He said the crisis won’t undermine the fight on terrorism.

“What we’re seeing is a growing list of some irritants in the region that have been there for some time,” Tillerson said. “Obviously they’ve now bubbled up to a level that countries decided they needed to take action in an effort to have those differences addressed.”

Monday’s actions escalate a crisis that started shortly after President Donald Trump’s trip last month to Saudi Arabia, where he and King Salman singled out Iran as the world’s main sponsor of terrorism.

Verbal War

Three days after Trump left Riyadh, the state-run Qatar News Agency carried comments by Qatari ruler Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani criticizing mounting anti-Iran sentiment. Officials quickly deleted the comments, blamed them on hackers and appealed for calm.

Saudi and U.A.E. media outlets then launched verbal assaults against Qatar, which intensified after Sheikh Tamim’s phone call with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani over the weekend in apparent defiance of Saudi criticism.

Past Crisis

Disagreements among the six GCC members have flared in the past, and tensions with Qatar could be traced to the mid-1990s when Al Jazeera television was launched from Doha, providing a platform for Arab dissidents to criticize autocratic governments in the region --except Qatar’s.

GCC members Kuwait and Oman have so far maintained their diplomatic and commercial ties with Qatar.

Qatar also played a key role in supporting anti-regime movements during the Arab Spring, and acted against Saudi and U.A.E. interests by bankrolling the Muslim Brotherhood’s government in Egypt. Qatar also hosts members of the exiled leadership of the Iranian-backed Hamas militant group that rules the Gaza Strip.

In 2014, Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E. and Bahrain temporarily withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar. That dispute centered on Egypt following the army-led ouster of Islamist President Mohamed Mursi, a Muslim Brotherhood leader.

This time, Saudi Arabia, along with Bahrain and the U.A.E., gave Qatari diplomats 48 hours to leave.

The crisis comes shortly after Moody’s Investor Service cut Qatar’s credit rating by one level to Aa3, the fourth-highest investment grade, citing uncertainty over its economic growth model.

Read More: Qatar Wealth Fund’s Expansion Undeterred by Brexit, Trump

“Qatar is economically and socially most vulnerable from food and other non-energy imports,” said Paul Sullivan, a Middle East expert at Georgetown University. “If there is a true blockade, this could be a big problem for them. Rules stopping citizens of the U.A.E., Saudi Arabia and Bahrain from even transiting via Qatar could cause significant disruptions.”

 feeder wrote:
Just hearsay, but the story is that important Qatari persons were secretly recorded stating that Saudi Arabia funds terrorism. When the recording were public Saudi and Egypt went "Nuh-uh! You fund terror!"

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Can we please do the same to Saudi Arabia?

 Ouze wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Just hearsay, but the story is that important Qatari persons were secretly recorded stating that Saudi Arabia funds terrorism. When the recording were public Saudi and Egypt went "Nuh-uh! You fund terror!"

Saudi Arabia and Qatar arguing about who sponsors terrorism is literally 2 guys in an elevator, who both farted, blaming each other for the smell.

 feeder wrote:
Just hearsay, but the story is that important Qatari persons were secretly recorded stating that Saudi Arabia funds terrorism. When the recording were public Saudi and Egypt went "Nuh-uh! You fund terror!"

Also the Qatar head of state is a member of the Saudi royal family (cousin or something) so it's entirely possible this is all stupid peen waving among them who have something very old and personal to settle.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the U.S. stands ready to help defuse the tension..

 General Annoyance wrote:

This also probably means I won't be able to visit my parents. Yay.

 d-usa wrote:
If we can focus on the important issues for a minute:

Does that mean we may be able to not have the World Cup in Qatar?

 d-usa wrote:
If we can focus on the important issues for a minute:

Does that mean we may be able to not have the World Cup in Qatar?

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
As someone who lived in the U.A.E. for 5 years, and Qatar for 1, I can definitely say that they never gave the impression of an ultra-Wahhabist state that Saudi Arabia did. If anything Doha was trying (and failing despite the massive amount of funds) to emulate the international modernistic vibe of Dubai.
Also, the Saudi kids were notorious d***heads at our school.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
Saudi Arabia is looking to expand its control over the region, through close alliances with states like the Emirates and Egypt but more recently with asserting its control over Yemen and Qatar. During the Arab Spring they took advantage of the civil unrest in Bahrain to cement their control over that region by using military force to crush a pro-democratic movement and shore up a pro-Saudi kingdom. They've had their eye on the immense wealth of Qatar for a long time now and it is likely that they received the permission, if not the approval, of the US during Trump's visit to the region. I wouldn't use that as a reason to put the blame at feet of the US, but having such a powerful ally has certainly emboldened Saudi Arabia in their designs for the minor states in the region.

Qatar crisis: Saudi Arabia insists Gulf country must meet its demands ‘soon’
Qatar has ‘chosen to ride the tiger of extremism and terrorism,’ says one diplomat, as tentative steps towards reconciliation falter in unprecedented rift

Saudi Arabia has issued neighbouring Qatar with a list of ten demands it must meet, after Riyadh and other nations in the region took the unexpected step of cutting off ties to the tiny kingdom, accusing it of supporting terrorism.

Kuwaiti mediators flew to the Saudi capital on Tuesday, where diplomats conveyed extensive demands of Doha, including cutting off all links with Iran and expelling resident members of Palestinian militant group Hamas and the pan-Arab Muslim Brotherhood.

Other points included curbs on the freedom of Qatar’s state-funded broadcaster al-Jazeera, which its Gulf neighbours have accused of slander and ‘fake news’, orders to stop “interfering” in foreign countries’ affairs and to cease any funding or support for terrorist organisations.

Qatar vehemently denies all these allegations.

Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister demanded on Tuesday that Qatar respond to its ultimatum “soon,” if the leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) were to meet to discuss further reconciliatory action.

It was with “great pain” that his country and others took measures against Qatar, said Adel al-Jubeir, but it was the aim of “restoring relations to how they were in the past”.

The minister spoke to media after meetings with his German counterpart in Berlin.

An Emirati diplomat took a harder stance on Wednesday, telling the Associated Press “there's nothing to negotiate” with Qatar.

Doha has “chosen to ride the tiger of extremism and terrorism” and now needs to pay the price, said Emirati Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash, in a signal that some involved in the standoff are not willing to negotiate.

The UAE’s justice ministry warned social media users on Wednesday that any expressions of “sympathy” for Qatar could result in between three to 15 years in prison, as well as hefty fines.

On Monday, the Saudis accused Doha of supporting Iran-backed “terrorist activities” in the country’s east, as well as in Shia-majority Bahrain. The suggestion that Qatar is aiding and abetting Shia Iran – the majority Sunni Gulf's arch-rival – is particularly sensitive.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt severed all diplomatic ties, followed by the internationally recognised governments of Yemen and Libya, the Maldives and Mauritania.

The crisis has only escalated since, and could have manifold economic and political effects for the Middle East – as well as alter the course of the region’s many conflicts.

The closure of the tiny energy-rich kingdom’s sea, land and air borders with its neighbours has effectively left Qatar under siege. Panicked citizens have cleared supermarket shelves of produce, the country’s stock market has plummeted, and Qatari nationals living abroad have been given 14 days to leave.

Doha’s Hamad International Airport has been eerily quiet since Riyadh led the charge in revoking state-owned Qatar Airways’ operational licences.

The airline has been blocked from landing in the affected countries, and Al-Jazeera offices have been shut down by authorities in Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

Doha has long been considered “rogue and maverick” by its neighbours, said Emirati Sultan Sooud Al Qassemi on Wednesday. Its citizens must “question if this is going to end up in seeing a change in leadership itself,” he added.

On Wednesday, several Gulf diplomats suggested their complaints about Qatar go back years, implying criticism of Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, who took over as Qatar’s emir in 1995 and greatly expanded his nation’s international influence through negotiating hostage releases, briefly flirting with diplomatic ties to Israel, hosting controversial groups such as Hamas and the Taliban and creating Al-Jazeera.

Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, his son, became Qatar’s ruling emir in 2013.

The latest row is the worst to affect the region since Qatar drew ire across the Gulf by publicly backing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 2014.

Aside from the terror support allegations, it has been sparked by other factors such as anger over “fake news” distributed by Qatar’s state-run news agency last month – blamed on Russian hackers – and Doha’s April decision to pay a colossal $500m (£389m) in ransom money to Shia paramilitaries in Iraq for the safe return of several members of its Royal family, kidnapped on a hunting trip.

Iran, the secondary target of Monday’s co-ordinated move, has blamed US President Donald Trump for emboldening the Gulf states after a two-day trip to Riyadh last month in which he reiterated US support for Saudi Arabia and singled out Iran as a sponsor of Islamist terrorism.

While in tweets Mr Trump appeared to back his Saudi allies’ decision, the White House has officially urged Arab unity for “peace and security” in the region.

 Frazzled wrote:
Except of course there are US bases on both of them.

 Easy E wrote:
Well, maybe we will find out if Merkel was right about us being an unreliable ally?

 whembly wrote:

Seems serious...

Is it wrong that the cynic in me is thinking that this is an elaborate head-fake in order to drive up oil prices?? Or is this the real dealio?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Saudi Arabia calling out Iran on terrorism never gets old. Iranians are goddamn hyper-liberal SJW compared to Saudi.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Well, maybe we will find out if Merkel was right about us being an unreliable ally?

Spoiler alert:
you are. You just pulled out of the Paris agreement for instance.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Saudi Arabia calling out Iran on terrorism never gets old. Iranians are goddamn hyper-liberal SJW compared to Saudi.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Well, maybe we will find out if Merkel was right about us being an unreliable ally?

Spoiler alert:
you are. You just pulled out of the Paris agreement for instance.

The last time Germany had an ally they invaded them in Spring 1941.

Paris was an agreement with Obama not the US government. Sorry.

 Frazzled wrote:
The last time Germany had an ally they invaded them in Spring 1941.

 Frazzled wrote:
Paris was an agreement with Obama not the US government. Sorry.

The Qatari government has said a May 23 news report on its Qatar News Agency attributed false remarks to the nation's ruler that appeared friendly to Iran and Israel and questioned whether President Donald Trump would last in office.

 Frazzled wrote:
The last time Germany had an ally they invaded them in Spring 1941.

 Ouze wrote:
CNN is reporting that Russian inserted a fake news story which helped to get this gak show rolling:

The Qatari government has said a May 23 news report on its Qatar News Agency attributed false remarks to the nation's ruler that appeared friendly to Iran and Israel and questioned whether President Donald Trump would last in office.

They're saying the FBI is confirming this.

So, this is seems like an extension of Russia's efforts to undermine the US.

 Frazzled wrote:
The last time Germany had an ally they invaded them in Spring 1941.

wait wtf how did we get here

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Saudi Arabia calling out Iran on terrorism never gets old. Iranians are goddamn hyper-liberal SJW compared to Saudi.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Well, maybe we will find out if Merkel was right about us being an unreliable ally?

Spoiler alert:
you are. You just pulled out of the Paris agreement for instance.

The last time Germany had an ally they invaded them in Spring 1941.

Ba dum tish.

Paris was an agreement with Obama not the US government. Sorry.

That's not how diplomacy works, Donnie .

razz's mind is like a wiener dog in a rabbit warren. Dark, twisting tunnels, and full of the certainty that just around the next bend will be the quarry he seeks.

 feeder wrote:

Frazz's mind is like a wiener dog in a rabbit warren. Dark, twisting tunnels, and full of the certainty that just around the next bend will be the quarry he seeks.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The last time Germany had an ally they invaded them in Spring 1941.

That was not the last time.

 Frazzled wrote:
Paris was an agreement with Obama not the US government. Sorry.

 d-usa wrote:
In less than a page a thread about two Middle East countries became a thread about US politics.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The last time Germany had an ally they invaded them in Spring 1941.

That was not the last time.

That was the last time anyone trusted them. There's a reason the allies had troops there.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
In less than a page a thread about two Middle East countries became a thread about US politics.

Maybe we should petition the mods to reinstate it? (or tribute skulls for the Blood God!).

Spoiler:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Well, maybe we will find out if Merkel was right about us being an unreliable ally?

Spoiler alert:
you are. You just pulled out of the Paris agreement for instance.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
Saudi Arabia is looking to expand its control over the region, through close alliances with states like the Emirates and Egypt but more recently with asserting its control over Yemen and Qatar. During the Arab Spring they took advantage of the civil unrest in Bahrain to cement their control over that region by using military force to crush a pro-democratic movement and shore up a pro-Saudi kingdom. They've had their eye on the immense wealth of Qatar for a long time now and it is likely that they received the permission, if not the approval, of the US during Trump's visit to the region. I wouldn't use that as a reason to put the blame at feet of the US, but having such a powerful ally has certainly emboldened Saudi Arabia in their designs for the minor states in the region.


As for these accusations of terrorism, they are based mainly off three things.
1) The significant payments by Qatar for the release of members of the royal family being held hostage by terrorist organisations, to the sum of over $1 billion.
2) Their support of the Muslim Brotherhood (hence Egypt joining in here). Saudi and Emirati objections to this are not on the grounds of religious extremism, they feel threatened by the anti-monarchy stance of the organisation.
3) The fabricated statements of the Qatari Emir in support of Iran and Israel (a bizarre combo). I can guess that the Saudi government either knew these statements were fabricated when they reacted to them, or didn't care.

As someone who lived in the U.A.E. for 5 years, and Qatar for 1, I can definitely say that they never gave the impression of an ultra-Wahhabist state that Saudi Arabia did. If anything Doha was trying (and failing despite the massive amount of funds) to emulate the international modernistic vibe of Dubai.
Also, the Saudi kids were notorious d***heads at our school.


The cutting off of communications and travel is far too abrupt to be a genuine diplomatic dispute, this is the precursor to military action. Mark my words, we will be seeing Saudi troops in Qatari streets soon enough. A border incident, real or fabricated, will be the likely justification for the occupation of Qatar.

 whembly wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Can we please do the same to Saudi Arabia?

Baby steps...

It's going to take quite some time to reform the wahhabism/salafist sect.. maybe multi-generational.

Prestor Jon wrote:
We'd be better off creating better relations with Iran and using that partnership to make Iran more tolerant of Western ideals (they're already more westernized than KSA in some key ways) and use that to curtail the power and influence of KSA in the region and do a much better job of forcing KSA to curtail its actions of being the leading supporter and exporting of fundamentalist Islam and consequently fundamentalist Islamic terrorists in the world.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Can we please do the same to Saudi Arabia?

Baby steps...

It's going to take quite some time to reform the wahhabism/salafist sect.. maybe multi-generational.

Whembly, this is about strengthening the wahhabist/Salafist sect not weakening it. Roughly 80% of Qatar's muslims are Sunnis and about half of them are Salafist. Using these flimsy excuses to bring the Sunni Salafists in Qatar closer to the Sunni Salafists in KSA by trying to link the 20% or so of muslims in Qatar that are Shia to Iran and Iranian terrorism. KSA the strongest Sunni nation in the region is trying to create a situation where they need to intercede in Qatar to protect the Sunni majority from the dangerous terrorism of the Shia minority and connect that Shia minority to Iran, KSA's rival in the region. I swear I'm not trying to Godwin this thread but there are legit parallels here with the Sudetenland.

If you want to try to force moderation on wahhabists/Salafists that gets back to the US forging a better relationship with Iran and the Iran nuclear deal that the Republicans (the party with strong ties to oil, oil money and KSA) trying to make hay over bashing Obama for it. We'd be better off creating better relations with Iran and using that partnership to make Iran more tolerant of Western ideals (they're already more westernized than KSA in some key ways) and use that to curtail the power and influence of KSA in the region and do a much better job of forcing KSA to curtail its actions of being the leading supporter and exporting of fundamentalist Islam and consequently fundamentalist Islamic terrorists in the world.

 Frazzled wrote:

2) Treaties work when they are passed by the Senate. This one wasn't.

 d-usa wrote:
Iran had an election that was essentially a referendum on moderation vs returning to more fundamentalism. Instead of praising those reforms we doubled down on the other team.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Iran had an election that was essentially a referendum on moderation vs returning to more fundamentalism. Instead of praising those reforms we doubled down on the other team.

It's because americans did exactly the opposite choice and voted for fundamentalism. Well less than half did but that's a wonderfully democratic system at work here…
Still, Iranians > Americans. You hear this Frazzled ?
Seriously the current president is trying to lick Saudi's behind like they taste like donuts (though more probably the reason is they taste like money). And all his little pawn are still fawning over him because they are too dumb to put 2 and 2 together and understand their precious "anti-PC" hero is 100% supporting Islamism…

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

2) Treaties work when they are passed by the Senate. This one wasn't.

That's the process of ratification, giving effect to the international pledge in domestic law.


A country signing a treaty and then not ratifying or otherwise enforcing it is the equivalent of a roommate promising to do the dishes but spends the rest of the day on the couch playing video games.

As President Obama was, well, The President there can be no more direct representation of the nation in an international forum. Same as any promise or deal made by President Trump is a deal made on behalf of the State of the United States of America. The obligations entailed in international treaties are not at all discarded on the whims of a changing government, at least not without reneging on their promise.

 whembly wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Can we please do the same to Saudi Arabia?

Baby steps...

It's going to take quite some time to reform the wahhabism/salafist sect.. maybe multi-generational.

Whembly, this is about strengthening the wahhabist/Salafist sect not weakening it. Roughly 80% of Qatar's muslims are Sunnis and about half of them are Salafist. Using these flimsy excuses to bring the Sunni Salafists in Qatar closer to the Sunni Salafists in KSA by trying to link the 20% or so of muslims in Qatar that are Shia to Iran and Iranian terrorism. KSA the strongest Sunni nation in the region is trying to create a situation where they need to intercede in Qatar to protect the Sunni majority from the dangerous terrorism of the Shia minority and connect that Shia minority to Iran, KSA's rival in the region. I swear I'm not trying to Godwin this thread but there are legit parallels here with the Sudetenland.

If you want to try to force moderation on wahhabists/Salafists that gets back to the US forging a better relationship with Iran and the Iran nuclear deal that the Republicans (the party with strong ties to oil, oil money and KSA) trying to make hay over bashing Obama for it. We'd be better off creating better relations with Iran and using that partnership to make Iran more tolerant of Western ideals (they're already more westernized than KSA in some key ways) and use that to curtail the power and influence of KSA in the region and do a much better job of forcing KSA to curtail its actions of being the leading supporter and exporting of fundamentalist Islam and consequently fundamentalist Islamic terrorists in the world.

I'm not totally convinced that it's wholly on a sunni-shia schism here(meaning religiously)... but more general Arab vs Persian (nationality) Hetfeild/McCoyism here...

My Iranian colleagues believes its more of the latter and not the former.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

2) Treaties work when they are passed by the Senate. This one wasn't.

That's the process of ratification, giving effect to the international pledge in domestic law.


A country signing a treaty and then not ratifying or otherwise enforcing it is the equivalent of a roommate promising to do the dishes but spends the rest of the day on the couch playing video games.

As President Obama was, well, The President there can be no more direct representation of the nation in an international forum. Same as any promise or deal made by President Trump is a deal made on behalf of the State of the United States of America. The obligations entailed in international treaties are not at all discarded on the whims of a changing government, at least not without reneging on their promise.

The president doesn't have the authority to commit the US to an international treaty that power resides with Congress. That's the whole point of a representative democracy you don't have one person with the capacity act on behalf of the country unilaterally. The president can't make the country adhere to any treaty only Congress can pass the laws that require the US to be in compliance with the treaty. If the president can't convince congress to support joining a treaty then whatever promises or commitments the president made are worthless. I much prefer Trump withdrawing from the treaty that we're ignoring, that's more honest and straightforward than Obama promising to support a treaty and then having congress and by extension the rest of the country deliberately ignoring.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Well, maybe we will find out if Merkel was right about us being an unreliable ally?

Spoiler alert:
you are. You just pulled out of the Paris agreement for instance.

Paris was an agreement with Obama not the US government. Sorry.

 sebster wrote:


To put it another way - no-one gives a feth about internal US processes. What they care about is whether the US as a nation can be counted on as a reliable partner who will stand by commitments made.

Prestor Jon wrote:

The president doesn't have the authority to commit the US to an international treaty that power resides with Congress. That's the whole point of a representative democracy you don't have one person with the capacity act on behalf of the country unilaterally. The president can't make the country adhere to any treaty only Congress can pass the laws that require the US to be in compliance with the treaty. If the president can't convince congress to support joining a treaty then whatever promises or commitments the president made are worthless. I much prefer Trump withdrawing from the treaty that we're ignoring, that's more honest and straightforward than Obama promising to support a treaty and then having congress and by extension the rest of the country deliberately ignoring it.

 Galas wrote:
But to be honest, every country do that. Spain, France, Germany, etc... we all sell them weapons, ships, tanks, etc... for that sweet sweet petroleum.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 sebster wrote:


To put it another way - no-one gives a feth about internal US processes. What they care about is whether the US as a nation can be counted on as a reliable partner who will stand by commitments made.

Bingo. Well said.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
What do you mean external non-US processes? A foreign country's own process to create legislature? Obviously not, why should you?

I imagine Americans do give a feth about whether or not a country lives up to its side of an agreement with the US though.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
What do you mean external non-US processes? A foreign country's own process to create legislature? Obviously not, why should you?

I imagine Americans do give a feth about whether or not a country lives up to its side of an agreement with the US though.

There isn't an agreement until its valid however. Even then such agreements are only valid if the countries abide by them (remember "trust but verify.")

IO would love it if the world thought we were untrustworthy, then they would quit asking us for money / troops etc. etc. You wanted it, hey you got it.

 Frazzled wrote:

In this instance, Obama has no more authority than Bob the Tourist.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

In this instance, Obama has no more authority than Bob the Tourist.

If you're talking about entering into international agreements, that is just flat out wrong.

I believe you are mistaking the ratification in Congress of a treaty with the actual discussion, formation and signing of said treaty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or you're confusing domestic validity with international validity.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Would the Saudi army actually be capable of defeating Qatar bolstered by Turkish troops? I know the Saudis have the gear, but are their troops well-trained enough?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Would the Saudi army actually be capable of defeating Qatar bolstered by Turkish troops? I know the Saudis have the gear, but are their troops well-trained enough?

 Frazzled wrote:
Are they trying to actually blockade Qatar? Absent that Qatar is on a peninsula.

 Frazzled wrote:
On the flip side, finally no one gives a feth about external non-US processes here. We are at an empass.

 Frazzled wrote:
There isn't an agreement until its valid however. Even then such agreements are only valid if the countries abide by them (remember "trust but verify.")

IO would love it if the world thought we were untrustworthy, then they would quit asking us for money / troops etc. etc. You wanted it, hey you got it.

 avantgarde wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Would the Saudi army actually be capable of defeating Qatar bolstered by Turkish troops? I know the Saudis have the gear, but are their troops well-trained enough?

The Saudi army couldn't fight it's way outta a wet tent.

Steelmage99 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

The president doesn't have the authority to commit the US to an international treaty that power resides with Congress. That's the whole point of a representative democracy you don't have one person with the capacity act on behalf of the country unilaterally. The president can't make the country adhere to any treaty only Congress can pass the laws that require the US to be in compliance with the treaty. If the president can't convince congress to support joining a treaty then whatever promises or commitments the president made are worthless. I much prefer Trump withdrawing from the treaty that we're ignoring, that's more honest and straightforward than Obama promising to support a treaty and then having congress and by extension the rest of the country deliberately ignoring it.

Legal details about ratification aside, isn't that the whole basic idea behind a representative democracy?

A small number of people represents the larger body of citizens at various levels of government?

Representatives (in the House) represent their constituents at House level.
Senators represent their states as a whole at Senate level.
The President (of the United States) represents the country (as a whole) at international level (sometimes using a proxy).

Am I getting the pyramidical power structure of one person, or a small number of people, representing a larger number of people in a representative democracy wrong?

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

2) Treaties work when they are passed by the Senate. This one wasn't.

That's the process of ratification, giving effect to the international pledge in domestic law.


A country signing a treaty and then not ratifying or otherwise enforcing it is the equivalent of a roommate promising to do the dishes but spends the rest of the day on the couch playing video games.

As President Obama was, well, The President there can be no more direct representation of the nation in an international forum. Same as any promise or deal made by President Trump is a deal made on behalf of the State of the United States of America. The obligations entailed in international treaties are not at all discarded on the whims of a changing government, at least not without reneging on their promise.

The president doesn't have the authority to commit the US to an international treaty that power resides with Congress. That's the whole point of a representative democracy you don't have one person with the capacity act on behalf of the country unilaterally. The president can't make the country adhere to any treaty only Congress can pass the laws that require the US to be in compliance with the treaty. If the president can't convince congress to support joining a treaty then whatever promises or commitments the president made are worthless. I much prefer Trump withdrawing from the treaty that we're ignoring, that's more honest and straightforward than Obama promising to support a treaty and then having congress and by extension the rest of the country deliberately ignoring.

I think we're arguing at cross-purposes here. Very few countries introduce international treaties as binding on their own domestic environment without their own legislature putting in laws to the same effect. I'm not disputing that Congress (or Parliament across the Pacific pond here) would need to support any treaty signed for it to be enforced (and therefore upheld). However international bodies will never be addressing Congress for these negotiations. International treaties are made on the promise of the representatives of their State. President Obama certainly had the authority to sign that treaty and make that promise on behalf of the US. The fact that Congress did not pass this treaty is in itself a preliminary failure to uphold the promise made to the international community. That the US is so divided internally that it cannot ratify and uphold the promises made on its behalf does not make that less of a failure to abide by that promise. I agree with you that President Trump hasn't broken the promise himself by withdrawing, the promise was already broken when it became clear that it would never be ratified by the Senate (the merits of that promise not withstanding).

To use the roommate anology again, let's assume Roomate 1 is considered a representative of the household when dealing with other people. Roommate 1 makes a promise to a Birthday Friend that he and the household will attend a birthday party and bring a bag of chips. He returns to the household and talks with Roomate 2 and Roomate 3. Roomate 2 is okay with attending a birthday party, but not bringing a bag of chips. Roomate 3 refuses to have any of them attend the party at all. Because no one can come to an agreement, none of them end up going to birthday Friends party.
If Roomate 1 is consider a representative of the household to 'other people' (the international community), he has the authority to make agreements or promises to other people on behalf of the household regardless of whether he thinks or believes that the other roommates will prevent the household from meeting those obligations.

 jmurph wrote:
Paris Accord discussion is way OT and needs to be dropped, before thread lock. Please?

This seems like a deadly serious problem. KSA hypocritically denouncing Qatar and now taking actions consistent with a buildup to armed conflict is deeply troubling. While no doubt emboldened by the current US leadership (or lack thereof), surely they can see how this could blow up into a major regional conflict? Do they expect that Qatar will blink and that will help strengthen KSA's place as the regional leader, perhaps?

 Easy E wrote:
What is the US committment to ensuring the free navigation of the Persian Gulf? I seem to recall some crisi int he 80's about the straits of Hormuz and free navigation (Back then it was Iran, so different aggressors).

Does a blockade of Qatar cause any issue with this free navigation? I mean, I know the Persian Gulf is not that big, but I am not a navigational expert for the region.

Maritime Security and Navigation
Overview. Maritime security is a global issue with numerous stakeholders having varying interests. Cooperation and coordination are required on a multilateral and bilateral basis along with international organizations and nongovernmental organizations. Key among these groups is the International Maritime Organization (IMO). National Security Presidential Directive 41/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 13 establishes U.S. policy guidelines to enhance national and homeland security by protecting U.S. maritime interests. The National Strategy for Maritime Security (NSMS) and its eight supporting plans, including the Department-led International Outreach Plan, implement this policy directive. Actions to implement this policy are taken in a manner that facilitates global commerce and preserves the freedom of the seas for legitimate navigation and other activities. Continual coordination with foreign governments and other partners and stakeholders assures the achievement of maritime security.

Piracy. Piracy, particularly off the coast of Somalia, has become an urgent maritime security matter. Attacks on shipping vessels can be expected to increase without enhanced international efforts. Pirates have received million dollar ransoms for the release of hostages, and Somali-based pirates have disrupted critical humanitarian aid deliveries to Somalia. An international Contact Group on Somali Piracy has been established to facilitate discussion and coordinate the activities of states and international organizations to suppress piracy off the coast of Somalia pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1851.

Vessel Tracking. Long Range Identification and Tracking of Vessels (LRIT) and the Maritime Security and Safety Information System (MSSIS) contribute to the achievement of maritime security. LRIT is a U.S. Coast Guard-led initiative through the International Maritime Organization (IMO) that requires vessels to report, in real time, data about their vessel identification and position. LRIT will allow States to track reporting vessels within 1000 nautical miles of their coasts. MSSIS is an Internet-based system to share Automatic Identification System (AIS) data among participating authorities. Under IMO requirements, vessels transmit AIS data to shore-based receiving stations and nearby vessels to aid in the safety of navigation. MSSIS participants share the AIS data that they receive, and a more complete picture of offshore vessels results. Originally designed as a NATO demonstration project in the Mediterranean Sea by the U.S. Navy, the Office for Global Maritime Situational Awareness is spearheading an effort to establish this system in other regions of the world.
International Navigation
Freedom of Navigation (FON) Program. U.S. policy since 1983 provides that the United States will exercise and assert its navigation and overflight rights and freedoms on a worldwide basis in a manner that is consistent with the balance of interests reflected in the Law of the Sea (LOS) Convention. The United States will not, however, acquiesce in unilateral acts of other states designed to restrict the rights and freedoms of the international community in navigation and overflight and other related high seas uses. The FON Program since 1979 has highlighted the navigation provisions of the LOS Convention to further the recognition of the vital national need to protect maritime rights throughout the world. The FON Program operates on a triple track, involving not only diplomatic representations and operational assertions by U.S. military units, but also bilateral and multilateral consultations with other governments in an effort to promote maritime stability and consistency with international law, stressing the need for and obligation of all States to adhere to the customary international law rules and practices reflected in the LOS Convention.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
What is the US committment to ensuring the free navigation of the Persian Gulf? I seem to recall some crisi int he 80's about the straits of Hormuz and free navigation (Back then it was Iran, so different aggressors).

Does a blockade of Qatar cause any issue with this free navigation? I mean, I know the Persian Gulf is not that big, but I am not a navigational expert for the region.

The way it's been explained to me is that the US doesn't have any claim on international waters or shipping lanes but we can act in defense of shipping lanes through international waters, such as the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz. So the US can take action to protect international shipping lanes/international waters from foreign powers that try to interdict commercial shipping or restrict access through international waters or internationally recognized shipping lanes.

Here's a summation from the US State Dept

https://www.state.gov/e/oes/ocns/opa/maritimesecurity/

Maritime Security and Navigation
Overview. Maritime security is a global issue with numerous stakeholders having varying interests. Cooperation and coordination are required on a multilateral and bilateral basis along with international organizations and nongovernmental organizations. Key among these groups is the International Maritime Organization (IMO). National Security Presidential Directive 41/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 13 establishes U.S. policy guidelines to enhance national and homeland security by protecting U.S. maritime interests. The National Strategy for Maritime Security (NSMS) and its eight supporting plans, including the Department-led International Outreach Plan, implement this policy directive. Actions to implement this policy are taken in a manner that facilitates global commerce and preserves the freedom of the seas for legitimate navigation and other activities. Continual coordination with foreign governments and other partners and stakeholders assures the achievement of maritime security.

Piracy. Piracy, particularly off the coast of Somalia, has become an urgent maritime security matter. Attacks on shipping vessels can be expected to increase without enhanced international efforts. Pirates have received million dollar ransoms for the release of hostages, and Somali-based pirates have disrupted critical humanitarian aid deliveries to Somalia. An international Contact Group on Somali Piracy has been established to facilitate discussion and coordinate the activities of states and international organizations to suppress piracy off the coast of Somalia pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1851.

Vessel Tracking. Long Range Identification and Tracking of Vessels (LRIT) and the Maritime Security and Safety Information System (MSSIS) contribute to the achievement of maritime security. LRIT is a U.S. Coast Guard-led initiative through the International Maritime Organization (IMO) that requires vessels to report, in real time, data about their vessel identification and position. LRIT will allow States to track reporting vessels within 1000 nautical miles of their coasts. MSSIS is an Internet-based system to share Automatic Identification System (AIS) data among participating authorities. Under IMO requirements, vessels transmit AIS data to shore-based receiving stations and nearby vessels to aid in the safety of navigation. MSSIS participants share the AIS data that they receive, and a more complete picture of offshore vessels results. Originally designed as a NATO demonstration project in the Mediterranean Sea by the U.S. Navy, the Office for Global Maritime Situational Awareness is spearheading an effort to establish this system in other regions of the world.
International Navigation
Freedom of Navigation (FON) Program. U.S. policy since 1983 provides that the United States will exercise and assert its navigation and overflight rights and freedoms on a worldwide basis in a manner that is consistent with the balance of interests reflected in the Law of the Sea (LOS) Convention. The United States will not, however, acquiesce in unilateral acts of other states designed to restrict the rights and freedoms of the international community in navigation and overflight and other related high seas uses. The FON Program since 1979 has highlighted the navigation provisions of the LOS Convention to further the recognition of the vital national need to protect maritime rights throughout the world. The FON Program operates on a triple track, involving not only diplomatic representations and operational assertions by U.S. military units, but also bilateral and multilateral consultations with other governments in an effort to promote maritime stability and consistency with international law, stressing the need for and obligation of all States to adhere to the customary international law rules and practices reflected in the LOS Convention.

I don't think we'll other countries having a lot of overt direct involvement between KSA and Qatar unless it starts to negatively impact the flow of oil out of the Gulf. Iran will certainly be involved covertly and with back channels but I don't think they'd want to show any signs of real links with Qatar as that would only be fuel for the KSA accusations of terrorism links and increase any furor along the Sunni/Shia and Arab/Persian fault lines.

 jmurph wrote:
Well, now Iran is moving warships around and Qatar is moving tanks out of storage.

Qatar had formerly been pretty independent compared to the rest of the GCC (Gulf Cooperative Council), but a big trigger seems to be the fake news, suspected to be planted by the Russians who just happen to be the world's largest natural gas producer. Guess who is #2.

It is also interesting timing considering the reception of Trump in Riyadh, despite his anti-Muslim comments. The Saudis seem to be aggressively trying to discredit Qatar, especially in the eyes of the Trump administration.

This is not a religious conflict- it is a regional power play.

 jmurph wrote:
It is also interesting timing considering the reception of Trump in Riyadh, despite his anti-Muslim comments. The Saudis seem to be aggressively trying to discredit Qatar, especially in the eyes of the Trump administration.

 avantgarde wrote:
There's very little chance of military action, the Saudi coalition is already bogged in Yemen. Qatar's import/export is too massive and well connected for the rest of the international community to not step in.

 jmurph wrote:
Don't forget that this is the same region where Iran invaded Kuwait. Once on high alert, it doesn't take much to cause things to escalate fast. Sabre rattling can lead to fights, sometimes unintentionally.

 jmurph wrote:
This is not a religious conflict- it is a regional power play.

 jhe90 wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Don't forget that this is the same region where Iran invaded Kuwait. Once on high alert, it doesn't take much to cause things to escalate fast. Sabre rattling can lead to fights, sometimes unintentionally.

Iran and Iraq. A
Israeli wars . (multiple)
Saudi war in Yeman.
Wars in Lebanon.
Gaza/Palestine wars.

If there's anything the middle east likes war :(

nfe wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Don't forget that this is the same region where Iran invaded Kuwait. Once on high alert, it doesn't take much to cause things to escalate fast. Sabre rattling can lead to fights, sometimes unintentionally.

Iran and Iraq. A
Israeli wars . (multiple)
Saudi war in Yeman.
Wars in Lebanon.
Gaza/Palestine wars.

If there's anything the middle east likes war :(

You can play that game with any region, mate. We'd still be at it in constantly in Western Europe if we hadn't had an enemy-of-my-enemy narrative during the cold war and the EEC to tie everyone's money together.

EDIT: right enough, it's easy enough to argue we are still at it constantly, just not at home.

 Frazzled wrote:

nfe wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Don't forget that this is the same region where Iran invaded Kuwait. Once on high alert, it doesn't take much to cause things to escalate fast. Sabre rattling can lead to fights, sometimes unintentionally.

Iran and Iraq. A
Israeli wars . (multiple)
Saudi war in Yeman.
Wars in Lebanon.
Gaza/Palestine wars.

If there's anything the middle east likes war :(

You can play that game with any region, mate. We'd still be at it in constantly in Western Europe if we hadn't had an enemy-of-my-enemy narrative during the cold war and the EEC to tie everyone's money together.

EDIT: right enough, it's easy enough to argue we are still at it constantly, just not at home.

Actually in Latin America wars between nations are rare. Civil wars and guerrilla movements, well that is a different story.

 sebster wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
This is not a religious conflict- it is a regional power play.

The two are inherently tied together. Power comes from holding a position in the dominant tribe. Loss of status and loss of wealth comes from being in the losing tribe. And religious identity, alongside tribal affiliation, is a key source of tribal belonging.

 jmurph wrote:
Well, yes, politics, identity, and religion are always interlinked. However, some conflicts are more clearly ideologically driven, some are more status or resource grabs. This is clearly the latter (though with attempts to make it look like the former). KSA is flexing it's muscles to try to assert regional authority over a relatively independent coalition member and is using false pretenses to do so. A regional partner is backing the target. Compare this to ISIS activities, or conflicts between the Kurds and Iraq, or other sectarian violence, for example. While they are all fights over power, they are different flavors.

 sebster wrote:


True. I guess on the Clausewitz scale that I just made up, with 1 being 'limited aims' and 10 being 'total war', this is like a 2 - the Saudis aren't chasing some all important objective that they'd be willing to sink a huge amount of men or money in to.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
If not for the forward support of Turkey and Iran there would be nothing huge about the money or men required to seize Qatar, at least in terms of what they'd gain out of it.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Thats a blatant Casus Belli. Its an Ultimatum of demands, some reasonable (thrown in as a red herring no doubt to make the Saudis look reasonable) but most are clearly demands that Qatar will never possibly agree to. Saudi Arabia knows Qatar will reject its demands, and will then have the excuse it wants to invade.

And as always, the useful idiots leading the West will turn a blind eye and let it happen if not outright collude with and participate in the Saudi invasion.

 avantgarde wrote:
I heard a rumor that Salman Jr. is trying to stir the pot prior to the AramCo IPO in order to inflate oil prices to boost the value of the shares. They want the money for Vision2030 which is a pet project of said, Salman Jr.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Thats a blatant Casus Belli. Its an Ultimatum of demands, some reasonable (thrown in as a red herring no doubt to make the Saudis look reasonable) but most are clearly demands that Qatar will never possibly agree to. Saudi Arabia knows Qatar will reject its demands, and will then have the excuse it wants to invade.

And as always, the useful idiots leading the West will turn a blind eye and let it happen if not outright collude with and participate in the Saudi invasion.

Blind eye? Absolutely no reason for the West to be involved. Last time we were involved Iraq happened. Only prudent course is to get the heck out of there.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Thats a blatant Casus Belli. Its an Ultimatum of demands, some reasonable (thrown in as a red herring no doubt to make the Saudis look reasonable) but most are clearly demands that Qatar will never possibly agree to. Saudi Arabia knows Qatar will reject its demands, and will then have the excuse it wants to invade.

And as always, the useful idiots leading the West will turn a blind eye and let it happen if not outright collude with and participate in the Saudi invasion.

Blind eye? Absolutely no reason for the West to be involved. Last time we were involved Iraq happened. Only prudent course is to get the heck out of there.

Whether we like it or not, we ARE involved. Saudi Arabia is America's military ally, and several European governments including my own have a close and somewhat corrupt relationship with Saudi Arabia. America has military bases in the country. We sell them weapons. We buy their oil. We cannot ignore this.

I'm not saying we should be taking military action in and against Saudi Arabia, but we sure as hell should be using every bit of influence we have on them to prevent this conflict. Withhold delivery of military hardware contracts. Stop buying their oil, and buy more from their competitors. Freeze Saudi financial assets. Start levelling sanctions on them, like we do against Iran and Russia.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
And allow the creation of a second, expansionist and aggressive Islamic Caliphate?

 ulgurstasta wrote:
Regarding the US involvement (or lack of thereof). Considering the timing with Trumps visit to KSA and the escalation of the conflict with Qatar shortly thereafter, I thinks it's pretty clear that KSA has gotten a thumbs up for this operation from the US under the table. So if this escalate into a open war I expect the US to be ready to support KSA with material if not manpower.

 skyth wrote:

 ulgurstasta wrote:
Regarding the US involvement (or lack of thereof). Considering the timing with Trumps visit to KSA and the escalation of the conflict with Qatar shortly thereafter, I thinks it's pretty clear that KSA has gotten a thumbs up for this operation from the US under the table. So if this escalate into a open war I expect the US to be ready to support KSA with material if not manpower.

Saddam got the thumbs up to invade Kuwait under the table from the US as well.

 whembly wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 ulgurstasta wrote:
Regarding the US involvement (or lack of thereof). Considering the timing with Trumps visit to KSA and the escalation of the conflict with Qatar shortly thereafter, I thinks it's pretty clear that KSA has gotten a thumbs up for this operation from the US under the table. So if this escalate into a open war I expect the US to be ready to support KSA with material if not manpower.

Saddam got the thumbs up to invade Kuwait under the table from the US as well.

Wait... whut?

Citation please.

 ulgurstasta wrote:
Regarding the US involvement (or lack of thereof). Considering the timing with Trumps visit to KSA and the escalation of the conflict with Qatar shortly thereafter, I thinks it's pretty clear that KSA has gotten a thumbs up for this operation from the US under the table. So if this escalate into a open war I expect the US to be ready to support KSA with material if not manpower.

 Easy E wrote:
I saw a brief blurb where the KSA made 13 demands of Qatar. I do not have great access on my phone at the moment so I would love if someone could post more about it his for the thread.

Thanks.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Well we now have a list of Demands from Saudi etc (demands are taken from the Guardian Newspaper, the commentary is not)


1. Curb diplomatic ties with Iran and close its diplomatic missions there. Expel members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and cut off any joint military cooperation with Iran. Only trade and commerce with Iran that complies with US and international sanctions will be permitted.

2 Sever all ties to “terrorist organisations”, specifically the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State, al-Qaida and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. Formally declare those entities as terrorist groups.

3 Shut down al-Jazeera and its affiliate stations.
(thought that would be in there)

4 Shut down news outlets that Qatar funds, directly and indirectly, including Arabi21, Rassd, Al-Araby Al-Jadeed and Middle East Eye.
(they really don't like anybody reporting in the middle east unless they're tightly controlled do they)

5 Immediately terminate the Turkish military presence in Qatar and end any joint military cooperation with Turkey inside Qatar. (Hmmm being asked to kick a valuable NATO ally out of one of their bases, tut tut)

6 Stop all means of funding for individuals, groups or organisations that have been designated as terrorists by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Bahrain, the US and other countries.

7 Hand over “terrorist figures” and wanted individuals from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain to their countries of origin. Freeze their assets, and provide any desired
information about their residency, movements and finances.

8 End interference in sovereign countries’ internal affairs.
Stop granting citizenship to wanted nationals from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain. Revoke Qatari citizenship for existing nationals where such citizenship violates those countries’ laws.
(how dare you offer political asylum!)

9 Stop all contacts with the political opposition in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain. Hand over all files detailing Qatar’s prior contacts with and support for those opposition groups.

10 Pay reparations and compensation for loss of life and other, financial losses caused by Qatar’s policies in recent years. The sum will be determined in coordination with Qatar.
(give us your money, we'll coordinate the hand over)

11 Consent to monthly audits for the first year after agreeing to the demands, then once per quarter during the second year. For the following 10 years, Qatar would be monitored annually for compliance.

12 Align itself with the other Gulf and Arab countries militarily, politically, socially and economically, as well as on economic matters, in line with an agreement reached with Saudi Arabia in 2014.
(how dare you have a foreign policy that does not fit with ours, what do you think you are, a soverign state!)

13 Agree to all the demands within 10 days of it being submitted to Qatar, or the list becomes invalid.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 ulgurstasta wrote:
Regarding the US involvement (or lack of thereof). Considering the timing with Trumps visit to KSA and the escalation of the conflict with Qatar shortly thereafter, I thinks it's pretty clear that KSA has gotten a thumbs up for this operation from the US under the table. So if this escalate into a open war I expect the US to be ready to support KSA with material if not manpower.

Saddam got the thumbs up to invade Kuwait under the table from the US as well.

Wait... whut?

Citation please.

Allegedly Saddam received the equivalent of a non committal shrug when the US was asked in a round about fashion if they would mind if he poached some oil fields and extra sand dunes from a neighbouring state on his southern border (not KSA).

Aiding an enemy of Iran by doing nothing would have been a win for the state department. Nothing bad could ever come from such decision.

 Ouze wrote:
Yes, it would be really outrageous, if it was true.

It would be most accurate to say the US didn't strongly enough signal that we'd respond with force, but that's a pretty far stretch from giving someone a green light.

 Ouze wrote:
Yes, it would be really outrageous, if it was true.

It would be most accurate to say the US didn't strongly enough signal that we'd respond with force, but that's a pretty far stretch from giving someone a green light.

 Easy E wrote:
He thought he had tacit aproval to proceed in Kuwait. The US ambassador sort of hashed it up, and ultimately the US did not agree.

Thanks Wembly, now I want to break out and I review Austro-Hungarians demands to Serbia in 1914 to compare and contrast.

 jmurph wrote:
But it is disturbing that the current US admin seems to be accepting the KSA narrative and even supporting greater action in areas like Yemen and even going so far as to recommend what would be acts of war against Iran. In February, Mattis wanted to intercept and board an Iranian ship in the Arabian Sea to look for contraband weapons and has requested to remove restrictions on U.S. military support for Saudi Arabia. Additionally, Trump indicated in May that he would support KSA despite Rouhani defeating hardliner candidate Ebrahim Raisi for the presidency of Iran, a victory that was seen as an indicator or more progressive policies.

This kind of support is definitely emboldening KSA in their proxy war with Iran.

 jmurph wrote:
Oh, the US has long been an enabler of KSA. I was simply pointing out that there have been opportunities to encourage more moderate forces and the current admin has not only declined those,

but embraced an antagonistic position towards Iran. The effect of this is pretty predictable.

 Frazzled wrote:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/rex-tillerson-mediating-gulf-dispute-signs-antiterrorism-pact-with-qatar-1499794895

WASHINGTON—The U.S. and Qatar signed an agreement in Doha Tuesday to crack down on terrorist financing, part of efforts by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson as he shuttles around the Persian Gulf to resolve a weekslong conflict between four Arab states and Qatar.

Under the agreement, the two countries will step up efforts to track down terrorist funding sources and will do more to collaborate and share information.

Speaking to reporters after meetings with senior Qatari officials, Mr. Tillerson said the agreement lays out steps both sides will take in coming months and years to “interrupt and disable terror financing flows and intensify counterterrorism activities globally.”

 Easy E wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/rex-tillerson-mediating-gulf-dispute-signs-antiterrorism-pact-with-qatar-1499794895

WASHINGTON—The U.S. and Qatar signed an agreement in Doha Tuesday to crack down on terrorist financing, part of efforts by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson as he shuttles around the Persian Gulf to resolve a weekslong conflict between four Arab states and Qatar.

Under the agreement, the two countries will step up efforts to track down terrorist funding sources and will do more to collaborate and share information.

Speaking to reporters after meetings with senior Qatari officials, Mr. Tillerson said the agreement lays out steps both sides will take in coming months and years to “interrupt and disable terror financing flows and intensify counterterrorism activities globally.”

Huh, the question is what does "Terror financing mean". I have a feeling they are talking about Al-Jazeera.

 Ouze wrote:
Yes, it would be really outrageous, if it was true.

It would be most accurate to say the US didn't strongly enough signal that we'd respond with force, but that's a pretty far stretch from giving someone a green light.