By Finian Cunningham
Source: RT
The devastating blitz on Saudi Arabia’s oil industry has led to a flurry of accusations from US officials blaming Iran. The reason for the finger-pointing is simple: Washington’s spectacular failure to protect its Saudi ally.
The Trump administration needs to scapegoat Iran for the latest military assault on Saudi Arabia because to acknowledge that the Houthi rebels mounted such an audacious assault on the oil kingdom’s heartland would be an admission of American inadequacy.

Saudi Arabia has spent billions of dollars in recent years purchasing US Patriot missile defense systems and supposedly cutting-edge radar technology from the Pentagon. If the Yemeni rebels can fly combat drones up to 1,000 kilometers into Saudi territory and knock out the linchpin production sites in the kingdom’s oil industry, then that should be a matter of huge embarrassment for US “protectors.”

American defense of Saudi Arabia is germane to their historical relationship. Saudi oil exports nominated in dollars for trade – the biggest on the planet – are vital for maintaining the petrodollar global market, which is in turn crucial for American economic power. In return, the US is obligated to be a protector of the Saudi monarchy, which comes with the lucrative added benefit of selling the kingdom weapons worth billions of dollars every year.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Saudi Arabia has the world’s third biggest military budget, behind the US and China. With an annual spend of around $68 billion, it is the world’s number one in terms of percentage of gross domestic product (8.8 per cent). Most of the Saudi arms are sourced from the US, with Patriot missile systems in particular being a recent big-ticket item.

Yet for all that financial largesse and the finest American military technology, the oil kingdom just witnessed a potentially crippling wave of air assaults on its vital oil industry. Saudi oil production at its mammoth refinery complex at Abqaiq, 205 miles (330 kms) east of the capital Riyadh, was down 50 per cent after it was engulfed by flames following air strikes. One of the Saudi’s biggest oilfields, at Khurais, also in the Eastern Province, was also partially closed.

There are credible reports that the damage is much more serious than the Saudi officials are conceding. These key industrial sites may take weeks to repair.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo got it half right when he claimed, “Iran launched an unprecedented attack on the world’s energy supply”.

Yes, it is unprecedented. But Pompeo and other US officials have most likely got it wrong about blaming Iran.

Some Trump administration officials told US media that “cruise missiles” were responsible for the giant fireballs seen over the Saudi oil facilities. One was quoted anonymously as saying: “There’s no doubt that Iran is responsible for this… there’s no escaping it. There is no other candidate.”

In a hurried effort to substantiate accusations against Iran, satellite images were released which show what appears to be the aftermath of the air strike on the Abqaiq refinery complex. US officials claim the location of the explosions indicate the weapons originated not from Yemen to the south, but from either Iran or Iraq.

Even the normally dutiful New York Times expressed doubt about that claim, commenting in its report: “The satellite photographs released on Sunday did not appear as clear cut as officials suggested, with some appearing to show damage on the western side of facilities, not from the direction of Iran or Iraq.”

The accusations made by Pompeo and others are assertions in place of substantiated claims.

It is noteworthy that President Donald Trump refrained from openly blaming Iran by name, merely hinting at the possibility. If Pompeo is so adamant in fingering Iran, why didn’t Trump? Also, the president made a telling remark when he said he was “waiting for verification” from Saudi Arabia “as to who they believe was the cause of the attack.” Again, if US officials are explicitly accusing Iran then why is Trump saying he wants “verification” from the Saudis?

For its part, Iran has flatly dismissed the allegations that it had any involvement, saying that statements by Pompeo were “blind” and tantamount to setting up a conflict.

Iraq’s Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi also rejected claims that his country’s territory might have been used by pro-Iranian Shia militants to launch the air strikes.

The Houthi rebels in Yemen have issued unambiguous statements claiming responsibility for the air raids on the Saudi oil installations. They were specific that the weapons were drones, not missiles, adding with details that 10 unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) were deployed.

The accusations made by Pompeo and others are assertions in place of substantiated claims.

Notably too, most US media reported initially that the attacks were by drones flown from Yemen. Associated Press reported a level of sophistication in the attacks whereby drones were used first to disable the US Patriot radar systems before other UAVs proceeded to execute the air strikes.

It therefore seems that US officials are attempting to switch the story by blaming Iran. It is reckless scapegoating because the logical consequence could elicit a military attack against Iran, in which event Tehran has warned it is ready for war.

The rationale for blaming Iran is that the Yemeni rebels (which Iran supports politically) are just not capable of using drones with such dramatic success against the Saudi oil industry. The culprit must be Iran, so the rationale goes. This is a follow-on from alleged sabotage by Iran against oil tankers in the Persian Gulf earlier this summer.

However, a timeline shows that the Houthis are more than capable of launching ever-more powerful ballistic missiles and deeper penetrating drones into Saudi territory. The rebels have been using drones from the beginning of the war which the US-backed Saudi-UAE coalition launched on the southern Arabian country in March 2015.

Over the past four years, the Houthi aerial firepower has gradually improved. Earlier, the Saudis, with American defense systems, were able to intercept drones and missiles from Yemen. But over the last year, the rebels have increased their success rate for hitting targets in the Saudi interior, including the capital Riyadh.

In May this year, Houthi drones hit Saudi Arabia’s crucial east-west pipeline. Then in August, drones and ballistic missiles were reported to have struck the Shaybah oil field near the border with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), as well as the Dammam exporting complex in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province.

The Yemenis claim they are taking the war to Saudi Arabia and the UAE after years of relentless air strikes on their homeland which have resulted in nearly 90,000 dead. A recent UN report censured the US, Britain and France for possible complicity in war crimes through their military support for the Saudi coalition.

There must be trepidation among the monarchs in Saudi Arabia and the UAE that the rebels from war-torn and starving Yemen are now coming after them with drones that could demolish their oil economies. What’s more, the much-vaunted American protector is not able to deliver on its strategic bargain, despite billions of dollars of Pentagon weaponry. That’s why Washington has to find an excuse by casting Iran as the villain.

Finian Cunningham is an award-winning journalist who has written extensively on international affairs.

Source: U-News.net
Professor of Political and Economic Sciences at the University of Sydney, Tim Anderson, said wars on the middle east can not be defeated individually rather there should be a certain level of organization and combined efforts for defeating the pressure against all these countries.

In an interview with Unews Press Agency, Anderson talked about his latest book “Axis of Resistance Towards an Independent Middle East”.

He said the book is mainly about the war on Syria, Palestine, and the resistance in Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran. Anderson added that it looks on the US-led war on the 8 countries of the region and encourages a study on the resistance.

“We can not understand these wars if we just look at the big pals, we have to look at the resistance and what it is doing and what is its characters and so on.”

Anderson explained “one of my arguments in the book is that these wars against this whole region can not be defeated individually but it has to be some combined efforts, of course that is happening to a certain extent there is coordination between the resistance in Lebanon and Syria and sections of Iraq and Iran, but the level of organization is crucial for defeating the pressure against all these countries.”

He noted that all through the war on Syria, there has been a very strong corporate and state media outworn of war propaganda against Syria, Iran, Iraq, Palestine and the resistance in this region.

The professor added that on the war in Syria there were personal and abusive attacks on some of the academics and writers who supported Syria, noting that some of these attacked put pressure on the university and he was pushed out of his job at the University of Sidney as they claimed he was saying inappropriate things about Israel.

“That is the subject of the court case now, I and the academic union and lawyers are challenging that dismissal at the moment,” Anderson added.

He also pointed out to a conference in Damascus that has been organized a couple of years ago by the General Federation of the Trade Union of Syria in solidarity with Syrian workers against the economic sanctions in Syria and was attended by 130 people mainly from the region and Africa, as well as from some from Europe, north America, and Russia.

He said “it was a productive conference and a good step towards forming some links and some alliances across national borders at this war because the economic war on Syria is not just on Syria it is also against at least six countries in the region, there is a siege on Palestine that has been going on for a very long time, there is a siege on Yemen, there is blanket sanctions on Syria and Iran, and there is a set of targeted sanction on Lebanon and Iraq, but effectively they employ a level of inclusion into the economic life of Lebanon and Iraq to the extent that they affect everyone in these two countries.”

Anderson stressed that “there is really economic war on this whole part of the world, it is not sanctions as it too soft term, it is a siege warfare trying to start and frustrate and weaken people and this is what we should draw attention to.”

He affirmed that there is in Australia a general sort of sympathy for Palestine which has been build up for a long period of time but there is a very poor understanding of the region in general.

“The left in Australia has been led by the exceptional liberals or the imperial liberals of the western countries, a large number of them has a lot of enthusiasm about the humanitarian intervention and warfare in these countries.”

It is still a battle to get people to express some positive support for the forces against Zionism and colonialism in this region, he added.

He continued “it is something that has been driven by the western liberals, the idea of a mission to save people from their own governments and their own systems.”

Anderson further confirmed that “all people who are against the invasion of Iraq in 2003 didn’t rally behind the aggression against Libya or the aggression against Syria, now we have a very long education process over the 8 or 9 years since the so-called Arab Spring and a ground level that there has been a shift in the popular opinion.”

About the argument that the conflict in Syria is a civil war, Anderson said in sarcasm “large parts of Syria are occupied by the Israeli regime, US, and Turkey, oh but it is a civil war!”

Source: Syria News

No longer the Syrian Arab Army will maintain constraint even if pressured by Russia, starting 10 pm Damascus local time the Israeli forces attacked the Syrian capital with 9 missiles which were intercepted by the SAA air defense.

The SAA retaliated in a forceful way and targeted 9 Israeli armed posts inside the Golan Heights under the Israeli occupation.

The following thread is from our Twitter account through the night:

Breaking: After a series of Israel (NATO + Gulfies) aggressions in the past few months against a number of #SAA positions in Syria, Syrian Arab Army retaliates with dozens of missiles against IDF posts in occupied Golan Heights despite pressure from Russia not to retaliate.

Israel sources falsely claim the retaliation is by Iran forces in Syria not by the SAA; lying is a basic feature of the Zionist regime.

Israel fighter jets targeted Damascus with 9 missiles about 2 hours ago and SAA Air Defense Forces responded to the missiles.

It’s the second attack with 48 hours against Syria coordinated with ISIS missiles earlier today from their last posts south of the capital.

The SAA retaliation targeted 9 IDF posts INSIDE Syrian Golan Heights occupied by Israel.
Israeli fighter jets were using US coded fighter jets & routes to attack Syrian military posts previously.

Foreign imported settlers in occupied Golan Heights rushed to the underground shelters but many had to leave them as it’s not prepared, high corruption in the ranks of Zionist officials deprived safety for their people.

SAA, Hezbollah and allied forces prepared to storm northern occupied Palestine as the way rolls on.
SAA continues to respond to incoming missiles from Israel now.

Netanyahu in Russia to take approval to attack Syria and ask Putin to remove Russian embedded troops with Syrian forces, waiting for confirmation from Moscow about their meetings.

Israel pushes its reserves in ISIS & Nusra Front to assist by launching attacks against SAA positions south of Syria.

Syrian Armed Forces retaliating with more force.

Residents in Damascus hearing series of loud explosions in the city’s skies watching SAA shooting down incoming missiles.

Residents in northern occupied Palestine hearing similar explosions in the skies.
Israel top officials in a state of shock from SAA’s large retaliation, most of them are in hiding.
Israel IDF only carries attacks against Syria from Lebanon and occupied Palestine and Golan Heights and only at night fearing to enter Syrian skies after #SAA shot down of the F16 a couple of months ago.

Zionist settlers, their IDF commanders, and political leaders rush to underground shelters while residents of Damascus & commanders of SAA are on buildings rooftops following the news.
Difference between the cowards and the brave.

US Taxpayers must immediately start funding their accounts to replenish Israel missiles, the Zionists are emptying their stockpiles at a fast pace in their dozens each time.

Just Now (04:40 Damascus local time): SAA air defense destroyed 2 more incoming missiles in mid-air over Damascus.

SAA until now is retaliating to Israel aggression in quality and quantity to push away the wider regional war, unless needed.

Israel has created a lot of enemies and attacked many targets inside Syria and only got Trump and Saudi Clown Prince as allies.Foreign imported settlers in Palestine & Golan Heights better book their tickets back to Europe at their earliest.

(04:58 Damascus local time): Israel has widened its already 5 hours aggression against SAA posts to reach #Homs countryside central Syria from within Lebanon.

The IDF wants to be the last who attacked and at least score something to talk about it, #Syria Armed Forces not giving such chance.

Whoever took the decision to attack the SAA while the Syrian Armed Forces are continuously fighting ISIS and Nusra Front all over the country will get his fingers burned, big time.

Large sounds of explosions in Kiswa area south of Damascus due to SAA shooting down Israel incoming missiles.

The Israel attack on #Homs Countryside was with more than 20 missiles.

Syria has been in constant war for over 7 years with the world’s strongest Armies of Anti-Islamic Wahhabi Suicide terrorists and the Syrians are accustomed to war, are the foreign imported settlers ready to a full war? Go back home to Europe.

Link to the above thread: Twitter Update

We will continue to update the post as the aggression is still ongoing until the moments writing this post.

By Tim Anderson
Source: Khamenei News
For four long years, Syria bravely held off internationalized terrorist hordes, ideological clones of al-Saud, with their only direct help from Hezbollah, plus logistic support from Russia and Iran. However, it took more direct engagement by Russia and Iran to turn the tide of that defensive war and convincingly defeat the proxy armies of Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh.

When General Qassem Soleimani presented the victory letter to his leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, announcing the end of DAESH rule in the region, it was not simply a message from an Iranian General to his Commander in Chief.

This was the message of a regional resistance leader, a key strategist, who had fought the enemy from Saddam Hussein’s assaults on Iran, through defense of south Lebanon from Israel’s incursions, to defeats of al-Nusra in the towns of the Qalamoun, to the liberations of Aleppo and Tikrit, and the series of victories over DAESH (ISIS), culminating in those at Deir Ezzor and al-Bukamal.

General Soleimani’s personal supervision of operations across four allied countries shows why the Islamic Republic of Iran is so feared by both Tel Aviv and Washington. Yet breaking the destructive influence of Israel and the US in the region necessarily means a greater responsibility for Iran. Without a cohesive alliance, the region will again come under attack, to be once again divided and pillaged. Strong regional leadership is essential; and only Iran is capable of providing it.

The IRGC Quds Force leader wrote:

“Six years ago a dangerous plot … covered the Islamic world like a devastating storm … [but] the resistance of the Iraqi and Syrian governments and the perseverance of the armies and young men of these two countries … played an important role in overturning this dangerous event … [I can announce] the termination of the rule of this vicious cursed entity, following the liberation operation of Abu Kamal, as the last fort of ISIS, bringing down the flag of this US-Zionist made terrorist group and raising the flag of Syria.”

Credit for this tremendous achievement lies in the bravery and sacrifice of the soldiers of the Syrian Arab Army and its allies, the Russian pilots, sappers and special forces, the Hezbollah-led Lebanese resistance and Iraq’s army and its popular mobilization forces: Hashd al Shaabi. All victories were paid for in the blood of the many, mostly young people who defended their nations.

But it was the coordination and combined power of this alliance that imposed itself on the region. When, in his humble way, General Soleimani told Iran’s leader that DAESH had been defeated, he was also telling the world that the Axis of Resistance had prevailed. It was not that all terrorism had been eliminated, but rather that all the major bases of the enemy had been taken by the Regional Resistance.

And where would the region be without that Resistance? Lebanon, a state set up to fail, would have disintegrated many years ago. The invited intervention of Syria in the 1970s prevented that disintegration, followed by the rise of an indigenous resistance movement. That movement, led by Hezbollah and aided by Iran, saved Lebanon, while holding off the Zionist colonizers.

For four long years, Syria bravely held off internationalized terrorist hordes, ideological clones of al-Saud, with their only direct help from Hezbollah, plus logistic support from Russia and Iran. However, it took more direct engagement by Russia and Iran to turn the tide of that defensive war and convincingly defeat the proxy armies of Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh.

In Iraq – where DAESH was created more than a decade ago, precisely to weaken Baghdad and prevent its constructive relationship with Tehran – the American ‘liberators’ once against betrayed the country. In 2014, Washington withheld the F-16 fighter planes purchased by Prime Minister al Maliki, just as DAESH overwhelmed Mosul. It took another indigenous resistance movement, Hashd al Shaabi, to rise and vindicate Iraq as a nation.

Now the enemy smears both Hezbollah and Hashd al Shaabi, with lies that they are extreme sectarians who do not care about their own people. Coming from the sponsors of al Qaeda, al Nusra and DAESH, that is hard to stomach.

It is true that important resistance initiatives have come from the Shi’a communities of Lebanon and Iraq. There are historical reasons for this, to do with histories of oppression, martyrdom and resistance. However, those same histories, of an alliance of the downtrodden (the mustadafin) have helped engage those communities with their neighbors. Mature leadership in both resistance communities has succeeded in building wider alliances.

The sectarian accusation, particularly from western and Zionist sources, has much to do with the frustration of their ‘divide and rule’ strategies, as also their dismay in seeing a revival of political will amongst their opponents. Nevertheless, sectarian accusations can never explain Iranian support for pluralist Syria and Sunni Muslim Palestine; nor the Hezbollah-Christian alliance in Lebanon; nor the powerful Shia-Sunni alliance within Hashd al Shaabi.

The fact is that a tremendous Axis of Resistance victory is unfolding, one that confounds the colonial powers. Despite the investment in huge, sectarian mercenary armies, the prosecution of a crippling economic war and a seemingly endless propaganda war, Washington’s plan to dismember and cripple the region is failing.

*Professor Tim Anderson is a distinguished author and senior lecturer of political economy at the University of Sydney, Australia. Author of the ‘The Dirty War on Syria’, he has been largely published on various issues particularly the Syrian crisis.

Muhammad bin Salman is using his purges to change the medium and possibly long-term priorities of the Saudi regime.
By Adam Garrie
Source: The Duran
As part of the wide-scale political purges conducted by Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman, Riyadh has ordered the arrest of Ahmed al-Jarba and Riad Hijab, two formerly Saudi backed proxies, vying to take control of Syria and establish a Takfiri state.

While Ahmed al-Jarba and Riad Hijab never had meaningful support in Syria, Saudi had consistently backed them and their colleagues in an effort to destabilise the secular Ba’athist Arab Republic.

Now though, both men are wanted in Saudi for “money laundering and smuggling”.

This is a further sign that the purges of Muhammad bin Salman are aimed at radically re-orientating the priorities of the Saudi regime. Additionally, Saudi has now all but admitted that its attempts to meddle in Syria’s sovereign political affairs have failed.

As I wrote yesterday,
“If viewed in isolation, the Hariri resignation appears like a clear Saudi organised attempt to foment discord in Lebanon by provoking Hezbollah, with the aim of weakening the resistance in Syria and opening up Lebanon to the kind of civil crisis which in the past has led to aggressive Israeli invasions and general strife.

However, when the events of yesterday are taken in totality, a different theory springs to mind, one which ought to be taken seriously, even if counter-intuitive at first glance.

After MBS’s ‘great purge’ of highly important figures in the Saudi ‘deep state’, including the billionaire and darling of western mainstream media, Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, it is fair to say that Muhammad Bin Salman has taken the first strike against any would-be challengers or political opponents as he continues to consolidate his power, even before formally taking the throne from the elderly King Salman.

This ‘great purge’ which comes after the house arrest of former Crown Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, is a clear indication that MBS looks to turn Saudi into ‘his’ country just as Stalin turned the USSR into ‘his’ when he purged virtually all the remaining elements of the original Bolshevik leadership during the 1930s.

It is this parallel that is also important in another way. Many commentators, including contemporary Russian opposition leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky has remarked that Stalin’s purges, including of the army, left the Soviet Union less than adequately prepared to stop the fascist invasion on 22 June 1941. It should be noted at this point, that MBS’ purge includes many security officials.

MBS’ purges were clearly planned a long time in advance, even though the creation of an anti-corruption committee technically took place only hours before it issued the first degrees placing powerful Saudis under arrest. The fact that MBS sought to conduct many major purges at the same time, is indicative of a man who does not intend to give his opponents any time to regroup against him. Again, this is somewhat reminiscent of Stalin who held large scale trials which prosecuted many opponents (for Stalin, traitors) at one time.

This is significant because it is generally unwise to meddle in the affairs of countries abroad, when conducting such a deep and wide purge at home. This very phenomenon has been often used to explain why Donald Trump’s foreign policy is so chaotic. Trump’s domestic distractions have disallowed the formation of a coherent foreign policy.

Of course, if MBS’ opponents had differing views on how to handle Hariri, the purge may have been an insurance policy. The more likely scenario though is that many of the men purged would not have been able to impact the Hariri decision, not least because it would mean publicly going against the narrative that Hariri resigned because he feared an assassination attempt from Iran and Hezbollah rather than because the Saudi regime told him to go. Few in the wider Arab world believe this narrative, but in Saudi, one ‘has to’ acknowledge it as true for obvious reasons.

This therefore, forces one to consider why the Saudi regime would involve itself in the Hariri affair on the same day as the ‘great purge’?

The answer lies in exploring whether the Hariri ‘purge’ was more for domestic consumption than for international consumption. As a powerful Saudi citizen, one could think of Hariri’s apparently forced resignation as the first Saudi purge of the day, on a day that saw many powerful Saudi citizens dethroned from powerful places in society.

The message to all powerful Saudis, including to Hariri, is that no one is too big to fall at the hands of MBS, even a Saudi citizen who is the Prime Minister in a foreign democracy. The fact that both Hariri and MBS are young men in a leadership role, would indicate that for the famously politically trigger happy MBS, it was also an ego boost.

What about the geo-political repercussions?

On the surface, the move will clearly enrage Iran, Hezbollah and to a degree anger Syria while emboldening Israel and extremist Sunni movements in the Arab world including al-Qaeda.

Practically though, Israel is all too aware that Hezbollah is far more powerful today than when it expelled Israel from southern Lebanon in 2006 and al-Qaeda, although making a final push in the Golan Heights with Israeli assistance, is nevertheless a terrorist group on its last legs in the Levant and Iraq.

As for Iran, while Saudi continues to spew predictably anti-Iranian rhetoric, Saudi’s pivot towards Russia and China necessarily prohibits further Saudi aggression against Iran, except for that which is limited to rhetorical statements that will irk Iran and give Russia a headache, but do little more.

MBS sees China and Russia as crucial partners that will help realise his Vision 2030 project to diversify the Saudi economy. This means that Saudi will have to increasingly play by both Russia and China’s rules, which mean abandoning proxy imperial ambitions, abandoning military threats against nearby states and possibly move towards selling energy in the Petroyuan.

Therefore, a radically different explanation for yesterday’s events in Saudi begin to emerge. Perhaps the Hariri ‘resignation’ and the great purge are meant less to encourage Israel and provoke Iran, Syria and Hezbollah than they are events used to send subtle messages to Russia and China, possibly with communiques made behind the scenes to clarify the meaning.

Such a message is summarised as follows: Saudi has surrendered in its attempts to politically influence the Levant and will allow the chips to fall where they may. The Saudi puppet is out of Lebanon and Saudi won’t do anything meaningful to oppose Hezbollah in the post-Hariri era in Lebanon. Instead, Saudi will focus on domestic political changes to pave the way for a more ‘eastern friendly’ MBS regime in Riyadh.

Here, the implied advantage to Russia is that President Michel Aoun will be allowed to form a new government in Beirut that will be more amenable to Russian and consequently Chinese interests in the region, thus giving the eastern superpowers an unbroken chain of partners in the region stretching from Pakistan to Iran, into Iraq and Syria and finishing on the Mediterranean with Lebanon.

In return, it is implied that Russia will continue to resist any US attempts to slow down MBS’ ascent to power.

To be absolutely clear, I do not believe for a moment that this is a ‘Russian plan’. Instead, Saudi is doing something whose long term outcome is naturally in Russia’s interest and Russia, a country which does not even intervene in the affairs of its enemies, will surely not intervene in the affairs of a Saudi state which is pivoting (however awkwardly) towards Russia and her partners”.

While the MBS purges are self-serving first and foremost, they are also part of his desired pivot away from over-dependency on the US. By publicly attacking its former political proxies for Syria, Riyadh is clearly showing that its internal matters now take precedent over directly meddling in the wider Arab world.

By Sharmine Narwani
Source: RT

For years the Saudis have waged proxy battles against Iran, with little success. Now, despite this history of losses, Riyadh appears to be mobilizing for an ill-conceived confrontation with the Islamic Republic.

“We know we are a main target of Iran,” speculated Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) in an interview early this month.

Then came the threat. “We are not waiting until there becomes a battle in Saudi Arabia, so we will work so that it becomes a battle for them in Iran and not in Saudi Arabia.”

These are fighting words indeed. The Iranians certainly thought so, Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan responding with unusual ferocity: “We warn them (Saudis) against doing anything ignorant, but if they do something ignorant, we will leave nowhere untouched apart from Mecca and Medina.”

In other words, if the Saudis launch direct aggression against Iran, this will be Riyadh’s last war anywhere, ever.

It’s an important line to draw. The Saudis, after all, have been in meltdown since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran saw popular protests dethroning a King (gasp).

And so, for the past 38 years, we have witnessed an increasingly aggressive Saudi Arabia in the region, chasing down Iranian/Shia enemies where there were none. Just look at Yemen, where the two-year Saudi bombing blitz has killed over 10,000 civilians, or Bahrain, where Saudi troops and tanks snuffed out dissent in the Shia-majority state, or Syria, where Saudis send weapons, cash and support to ISIS, Al-Qaeda and other head-chopping extremists. This Saudi hysteria has now touched every corner of the world, and by the $100+ billion Riyadh has invested in radical schools, mosques, and propaganda to indoctrinate an entire generation of Muslims in Wahhabi-style intolerance.

But while the Saudis are hell-bent on thwarting Iranian influence – real or imagined – Riyadh has never dared to take on the Islamic Republic directly.

As former US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates famously noted in a 2010 WikiLeaks cable, the Saudis always want to “fight the Iranians to the last American.” To which he then added, “it is time for them to get in the game.”

Now perhaps, under the direction of a 31-year old princeling, the Saudis are planning to do just that.

Saudi Arabia vs. Iran

Some perspective first on these two Persian Gulf “rivals,” in which I borrow heavily from an earlier interview of mine:

Both Iran and Saudi Arabia are rich in energy resources and have used this rentier wealth to advance their national goals, albeit with vastly differing results. Iran’s economy is focused on diversification away from the energy sector, developing self-sufficiency and becoming a net exporter. Saudi Arabia is import-focused. Iran spends $15 billion per annum on its military – compared to Saudi’s $80 billion – yet has one of the most competent military forces in the region and builds its own hardware. The Iranian political system is Constitution-based, diverse, and representative, with loudly competing political blocs that come with their own media and constituencies. The Saudi monarchy is based entirely on the rule of one family, with no meaningful elections or contesting political bodies, and little freedom of expression in the media. Regarding power projection, Iran favors the soft power tools of diplomacy, trade, and alliance-building based on common worldviews/objectives, whereas the Saudis have expanded their influence far and wide by spreading Wahhabi doctrine through schools, mosques, media and other institutions globally – and by blatantly buying the loyalty of allies.

In the past few years, we have clearly observed how Iran and Saudi Arabia’s nation-building approaches have affected the success of their geopolitical strategies. Both states have experienced existential fears and threats, and their respective alliances have now confronted each other on a few battlefields. Iran has approached the matter of its strategic depth carefully and built alliances with partners that genuinely share the common values of independence, self-determination, and resistance against imperialism.

The Saudis, on the other hand, have forged their external alliances with hegemony or dominance as the primary objective – irrespective of the divergent interests and values of allies. There is little contest – one side is a nation- and region-building, while the other flails about with unreliable alliances, propped up by petrodollars and all the strategic brilliance of a sledgehammer.

How can this relationship be classed as a rivalry, when the two don’t even operate on the same playing field? Would Tehran even notice Riyadh outside of OPEC meetings if it weren’t so belligerent at every turn, on every border?

But MbS’s promise to bring “the battle” to Iran must be taken seriously because it will not be launched alone. The Saudi prince’s chest thumping comes courtesy of an upgrade in relations with Washington. US President Donald Trump is enthusiastically pushing billions of dollars in weapons sales to the Saudis, and has chosen Riyadh as the destination for his first official foreign visit, championing the establishment of an “Arab NATO” that partners with Israel to confront Iran.

Don’t expect a conventional military confrontation as the opening gambit, however. The US, Israel and Saudi Arabia are experienced in subversion and sabotage activities against the Islamic Republic, and this is where they are likely to focus their initial efforts.

Last week, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei warned of foreign interference in the lead-up to Friday’s presidential poll: “the security of the country should be fully protected during the elections. Anyone who violates this should know he will certainly be punished.”

Calling for public vigilance, Khamenei outlined short, medium and long-term “enemy” goals in Iran: “to distort the country’s security and trigger chaos and sedition… targeting issues like that of the economy and living conditions of the people…(and) an effort to change the system.”

So how will the Saudis play a role? Riyadh’s hand in this “battle” will likely be seen on and inside Iran’s borders, in the same form we have witnessed in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and other theaters flooded with Saudi-backed militants.
Stirring up minority populations

Demographically, Iran is around 60 percent ethnically Persian, followed by a mix of Azeris, Kurds, Lurs, Turkmens, Arabs, and others. Some 99 percent of Iranians are Muslim, more than 90 percent of these Shia, the rest Sunni, and the remaining one percent a mix of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and others.

The main pockets of Kurds are in the northwest on the Iraqi/Turkish borders and in the north-east bordering Turkmenistan – Iranian Kurds are both Sunni and Shia. The second largest ethnicity, Azeris, who are mainly Shia, are also in the northwest on Iran’s border with Azerbaijan and Armenia.

Iranian Arabs who are concentrated in the south near the Iraqi border and the Persian Gulf – as well as around the Strait of Hormuz – are also mostly Shia. Iranian Sunni populations consist mainly of Kurds, Turkmens, and Balochis, and this is the demographic where signs of foreign interference are most notable today.
In recent years, thousands of Iranian security forces have been killed on the border of Iran’s Sistan and Baluchistan province with Pakistan – most recently in April when ten Iranian border guards died in a cross-border terrorist raid.

Reportedly, the operation was conducted by Jaish al-Adl (Army of Justice), a sectarian terrorist group the Iranians say is being directed by the US and Saudi Arabia. The US has traceable ties to some of these groups, notably Jundallah which received Bush-era funds from Washington before being listed as a terrorist organization. That “terrorist” designation, Iran knows, means little. The Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) was listed by the State Department for decades, but then de-listed in 2012 and is today being actively courted by US officials.

Jaish al-Adl is an offshoot of Sipah-e-Sahaba, an anti-Shia extremist group banned in Pakistan, but which appears to continue to enjoy both Saudi and Pakistani support. Sipah leaders are ferried around the border areas with Pakistani guards, and fill their ranks with young graduates of Saudi-funded Deobandi madrassahs rife inside the Pakistani border.

US hands are all over the minority map in Iran too. Media, think tanks and politicians highlight and encourage aspirations of Iranian minorities at every opportunity, and will undoubtedly take a more active role in stirring divisions as tensions escalate.

Cue the Kurds. Both US and Saudi fingerprints are all over this project of inciting a Kurdish rebellion inside Iran. Last June and July, for the first time in 20 years, Kurds in Iran’s northwest clashed with Revolutionary Guards, killing several on both sides.

The Kurdish group involved was the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (PDKI), a longtime Iranian-designated terrorist organization that announced in 2015 it would take up arms against the state. Not surprisingly, that declaration came shortly after PDKI leader Mustafa Hijri visited congressional leaders in Washington.
A vigilant Iran

American dirty tricks are certainly not new in Iran. Former Kennedy-era State Department official Richard J. Barnet wrote in 1968: “The (US) intervention in Iran in 1953 to unseat Premier Mohammed Mossadeq was America’s first successful attempt in the postwar period to subvert a nationalist government.”

According to Barnet, “Five US agents and seven Iranian intelligence operatives” led by CIA operative Kermit Roosevelt “plotted the coup from a Tehran basement.” They were responsible for “recruiting street mobs to oppose the Mossadeq supporters… With the help of substantial sums, which Roosevelt used for hired demonstrators to whip up the growing anti-Mossadeq mobs, and the support of the Iranian army, heavily dependent on US equipment, the insurgents were able to turn the tide against the intractable premier and to drive him from office.”

Iran is intimately familiar with these foreign machinations and has been vigilantly countering them in the decades since the Islamic Revolution.

This is not the compliant Shah’s Iran – this Iran, today, is an independent, sovereign nation-state that came through an 8-year foreign-imposed war with Iraq and built with its own hands a formidable military deterrent.

As we have seen with Iran’s activities in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon, the country’s ‘strategic depth’ is a red line – its national borders even more so. After warning the Iraqi government in 2014 that it would take decisive action if ISIS came within 40 kilometers of its border, the Iranian air force – for the first time since the Iran-Iraq war – used F-4 Phantom fighter jets to conduct airstrikes in Diyala province on its western border.

Iran’s armed forces chief Mohammad Hossein Bagheri has also now threatened military action on Pakistani territory unless Islamabad takes control of its borders, saying: “Unfortunately, the Pakistani border area has turned into a refuge and training ground for terrorists hired by Saudi Arabia, with the approval of the United States.”

In a letter this month to the UN Security Council, Iran’s UN Ambassador Gholamali Khoshroo addressed the Saudi threats: “We have no desire, nor any interest, in an escalation of tension in our neighborhood…We continue to stand ready for dialogue and accommodation to promote regional stability, combat destabilizing extremist violence and reject sectarian hatred…We hope Saudi Arabia will be persuaded to heed the call of reason.”

The Saudi princeling Mohammad bin Salman made a novice’s mistake by threatening to bring war to Iran – he put the world on notice. Any Iranian reaction now bears the full legitimacy of international law for a measured retaliation. The Saudi borders are long, its populations restive, and its soldiers have not seen this kind of war. We may yet live to see a Saudi royal eat his words.