Another angry ally

[abomvubuso]

In just 24 hours Saudi Arabia managed to do two unprecedented things. First, on October 17 the country was selected to be one of the ten temporary members of the UN Security Council for the first time in its history. Later, on October 18 it became the first country in history to decline that very same position.

And all this, given the fact that

Comments

[meus_ovatio]

I think they're just a little proud of themselves cuz they starting to let women drive cars in some cases.

[lantean_breeze]

Oh, so you beat me to it. I was just thinking considering how they treat women, they have absolutely NO room to talk about anyone's "failures."

They shouldn't feel too good, though, seeing as they only just joined the rest of the world in allowing women to drive...

[anfalicious]

I feel most women shouldn't be allowed to drive.

I also feel the same way about most men too though ;)

[sophia_sadek]

I'll bet you have a similar opinion with respect to the operation of nuclear artillery equipment.

I welcome a break from dining with terrorists

[rick_day]

Hmm, wasn't there a rather convincing and well researched book that linked the 9/11 hijackers with financing from the Saudi regime?

Do you think they would consider doing something like that again in retribution for these peace gestures?

Thanks for the post.

[abomvubuso]

I'd be interested to read that book.

To the question: the Saudis like to consider themselves a major regional player. And as such, they'd rather stick to using proxies. Including political formations in neighbouring countries and/or organisations adhering to their (geo)political agenda.

So the short answer is: would they attack the US interests in the region? - No, that'd be suicidal. Would they fund a direct attack on US territory? Definitely not. But would they feel the need for restraint in pursuing their goals through any means, including nation-building, promoting/toppling regimes according to their purposes and even intervening militarily in lesser neighbouring countries whenever their interests are directly threatened? I don't think so.

[rick_day]

this is the book I was referencing

[abomvubuso]

Given the response of this administration to some recent events like the whole NSA spying fiasco, I'd rather bet on "confusion", possibly coupled with a bit of damage control.

Thanks for the links, will review when I have time.

[htpcl]

They haven't tinkered with the oil supply though, have they? This should say a lot about the seriousness of their intentions. They may be demonstrating some butthurt right now, but business is business.

[anfalicious]

They're at record outputs.

[anfalicious]

Over or under? If it's less than they say, then we're all kinda screwed...

[mahnmut]

So there won't be any bows/curtsies and mouth-to-mouth kisses between US and Saudi leaders any time soon? /iz disappoint/

[rick_day]

do you have issues with men kissing? I'd love to see a Bush lick the crumbs of a Saudi royal soul patch.

[mahnmut]

No but I have issues with politicians being so cuddly with another country's leaders and then going around and accusing their domestic political opponents for being too respectful for those same country's leaders. It's called hypocrisy.

[existentme]

This sounds like a good read of the situation to me.