Diplomatic ties cuts off QATAR by rest of GCC countries.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**ulgurstasta**

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.

**AlmightyWalrus**

What's Russia going to do in this kind of situation, though? Presumably they'd back Qatar to piss off the US and to align themselves closer with Turkey?

**skyth**

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**

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.

**Mr. Burning**

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.

**jhe90**

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.

There's a US base there though. So id think KSA would be very careful where they where striking and operating.
Allies or not if they hit US troops, they might have issues there politically at least if not more.

Its key command base. + 11,000 us troops.
Not exactly Benghazi that they kinda ignored.

**Easy E**

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.

**whembly**

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.

From an earlier post:

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.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

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.

What the feth? The USA gave the go-ahead for Iraq to invade Kuwait, then went to war with Iraq to drive them out of Kuwait? We (the Coalition) lost 300 lives and over a thousand wounded in the Gulf War, which could have been prevented if they'd leaned on Iraq???

What a fething callous way to treat the lives of our soldiers, never mind the tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians who died on both sides for Iraq and Kuwait.

**Ouze**

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.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

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.

Thankyou.

**Mr. Burning**

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.

I said 'allegedly'

I wasn't fully aware of the the events leading up to Iraqs invasion of Kuwait. You could argue that Saddam needed a strong 'NO!' and a rolled up newspaper on the nose but hindsight and all that...

**Easy E**

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**

Yeah, it wasn't so much a green light as cordial relations and what appeared to be a disinterested stance. Saddam Hussein interpreted that as ideal conditions to move forward. The US military response was sluggish enough to indicate that he wasn't *entirely* wrong- he just misread the situation. It is why foreign policy and signals/messages from the POTUS are so important and why the current scenario is unsettling.

KSA is aggressively trying to isolate Qatar to bring them in line with KSA policies and to thwart their cooperation with regional rival Iran. KSA has been pursuing military actions and backing forces in Yemen and Iraq. In Yemen, this has been to support Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi against forces allegedly supported by Iran. This situation has turned into a humanitarian nightmare, with the KSA coalition targeting civilians and infrastructure and engaging in behavior that the UN has repeatedly criticized as a violation of international law. Houthis, BTW, who the US has been helping the KSA fight, have been one of the more effective groups against Al Qaeda and ISIL.

In Iraq, they have acted to support Sunni insurgents, much to the frustration of the US.

So it is ironic that they then accuse Qatar of supporting terror and lump in a bunch of different groups. 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.

**A Town Called Malus**

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.

I got you covered

Spoiler:

(Put in all the episodes as the story of the events that lead to World War One are so ridiculous and tragic and that only comes through when you look at all of the details and the circumstances of the time)

**jmurph**

It is now being reported that Qatar made a series of secret agreements with its neighbors that it was not upholding.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/10/politics/secret-documents-qatar-crisis-gulf-saudi/index.html

These are particularly interesting as the indicate the other GCC nations, specifically Egypt, were concerned that Al-Jazeera may be used to challenge the government. They also indicate hostility towards the Muslim Brotherhood, a political opposition force in Egypt, which would be consistent with post-Morsi Egypt and president Sisi's positions.

**avantgarde**

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.

Yes there's the Mattis appointment and Yemen raid, but how has that diverged significantly from previous policy? The increase in the drone campaign in Yemen, hand over fist weapons sales, support for the blockade and later intervention all occurred during the Obama admin. Coupled with the Iranian Nuclear deal and the Bush family's well known friendship with the Sauds, the US has been and continues to be an ally to the KSA through the past administrations. Unless you're arguing Obama was some sort of reluctance participant who wasn't capable of bucking the established pro-Saudi policy in DC, I think he ultimately pursued policies that aligned with both Saudi and American interests.

**jmurph**

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.

As to aligning with American interests, I think that is the point of debate. It certainly aligns with the interests of some very wealthy Americans and Saudis, but for long term stability, safety, and development, not so much.

**avantgarde**

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,

I believe non-interference in Saudi internal politics is still a continuation of the previous admin's policy as well. The replacement of Muhammad bin Nayef by the more aggressive Mohammad bin Salman was in the works as early as 2015, for example when King Salman sent representatives to speak to Obama in 2015, he sent MBN and MBS. In 2016, MBS came alone and if Obama was aware of the succession plan and MBS's personality (hard to believe he wasn't) he didn't lift a finger for MBN.

Furthermore non-interference in Kingdom politics is not only a long standing US policy but a Euro one as well: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/world/europe/germany-rebukes-its-own-intelligence-agency-for-criticizing-saudi-policy.html
The German gov't is well aware of the dangers of letting MBS closer to the throne, but publicly repudiated that line of thinking in favor of political expediency.

What I'm getting at is, criticizing the Trump admin for not steering the Kingdom away from pursuing their regional ambitions so aggressively and haphazardly is valid, but the criticism should be made with the understanding that a) doing so is a break in long standing US policy towards a useful ally, b) the administration lacked the clout to moderate MBS's position or prevent his ascension and c) tacit support/toleration of Saudi adventurism is not isolated to the Trump WH.

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

Yeah, I'd agree to that. Last admin tells the Iranians, nukes are what's keeping you out of the global community. Cut the deal, then when the new admin rolls in they antagonize the Iranians. And people wonder why, North Korea doesn't trust non-proliferation talk from the US.

EDIT:
Looks like the SecState is stepping in: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gulf-qatar-kuwait-idUSKBN19V2RV

The intelligent thing is for the Saudis to take the out.

**Frazzled**

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**

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.

**feeder**

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.

"Criticising the Saudis", probably. I know it's been basically a crime to even say "Qatar" in Saudi lately.

**sebster**

There's always a ton political stuff dumped on top of any middle east dispute, but it always comes back to oil. Well, not oil in this case, but natural gas. Qatar has large reserves, and because it is NG rather than oil it is still a competitor with Saudi Arabia, but not able to influenced by the Sauds like oil producers are. This pisses the Saudis off no end. Everything else is just nonsense piled on top of that.

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.

Sort of. Mr. Burning's description of the Bush admin's answer as a non-committal shrug wasn't that far off the mark. Here's the two key statements made by Bush officials direct to Hussein when he was probing for an okay for the invasion;

"(Washington has) no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait."
"We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

Now, when making both those statements what the Bush admin officials were meaning was "we have no official position yet, we will get back to you with one". But it reads like, well, a non-committal shrug, and that's not how Hussein took the comments. He thought it was a commitment of US neutrality, and pushed ahead with the invasion.

The US officials screwed up, they should not have used language so open to interpretation. But then it wasn't just their fault, they were trying to communicate for a Bush administration that hadn't clearly decided what its position would be. But Hussein also screwed up - I mean if you're considering a course of action that might draw the might of the US army down on your head, I think you should make sure you get something more than a half-answer before you start.

Also Kuwait screwed up. They shouldn't have been taking Iraqi oil. I mean seriously, don't steal from dictators with much bigger armies and a tendency to go to war. That should be obvious.