Because of lots of historical precedent that the US values it's relationship with SA over any principled objection to bad behavior on the part of SA? Obviously there are lines that couldn't be crossed, but SA believes this murder wasn't one of them.
>Are you saying supporting SA is in our national interest
Officially supporting Saudi Arabia has been the US position since Nixon was president for the purposes of lowering oil prices and assisting Israel. Supporting Saudi Arabia is undeniably in the national interest if you ask the people in this country who have been amassing power since that time. National interest and human rights are separate priorities.
>The US and Saudis both have a very large gun to each other's heads
Thats just not true. Saudi family rule over Arabia is predicated on US support. If all SA oil production stopped it would not topple the US government. If the US decided to back a political opposition like it did in Syria the Saudi regime would implode in days.
> Saudi Arabia killed an American journalist, dismembered him, and dissolved him in a vat of acid and yet we're still on our knees with their robe over our heads because yeah we need our economic relationship.
Not that it should matter, but in the interest of accuracy he was a Saudi journalist who wrote for (among others) an American media company, not an American journalist.
Unless they broke out the bone saws for someone else besides Jamal Khashoggi.
> It's an easy one to miss as most media seem to play it down rather a lot, I don't know why. Because Saudi are our allies?
No, the corporate media plays it down because the Saudis are major investors in US firms, including media (both old and new media). It's not about them being allies, it's about them being owners.
But then who has "really" been an ally since whenever? All sovereign nations have national interests, and they are not 100% allied with the US interests.
Still, in the case of Saudi Arabia, their most important security concern is Iran. And there, they are aligned with the US. Also, the US is the most important security partner of Israel, and, according to wikipedia [1], Saudi Arabia has quite a good working relationship with Israel
reports have surfaced in recent years indicating extensive behind-the-scenes diplomatic, intelligence, and security cooperation between the two as part of a larger Arab-Israeli alliance against Iran (see Iran–Israel proxy conflict and Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict) and, more recently, Turkey under Erdogan. At the same time, the Saudi relationship with the Palestinian National Authority is deteriorating.
A former general working for Saudi Arabia is in no way traitorous. It absolutely makes sense, both in their personal interest, but also in the general US national interest.
Yes, I know about Kashogi. But those guys are not going there to tell MBS to kill more disidents. They are going there to give security advice. And that security advice will benefit the US, not hinder it, because it will result in a stronger ally, not a stronger enemy.
> Saudi Arabia would exist with or without American support
At the same level? I have my doubts. If they weren't a close ally of the US, terrorist financing/leading stings would be going much further. Would they be able to do their thing in Yemen without US support? Or would they be a pariah on the world stage because of their acts, which are hard to tell apart from those of ISIS/ISIL? Not that I'm a big fan of the Iranian Mullahs and their backwards idea of how to run a society, but they appear somewhat moderate compared to the wahabi style.
> In a series of meetings, the United States and the Saudi royal family made an agreement. The United States would offer military protection for Saudi Arabia's oil fields, and in return the Saudi's would price their oil sales exclusively in United States dollars (in other words, the Saudis were to refuse all other currencies, except the U.S. dollar, as payment for their oil exports).[54][55]
> That - and the fact that they are allies on 'terrorism'
I think you put the quotation marks in the wrong place. The Saudi government are "allies" with the US on terrorism - that is, they nominally support the US efforts to combat terrorism, which means that the US overlooks Saudi-originating terrorism and instead directs its attention elsewhere.
> The fact that the US is not dunking on Saudi Arabia does not change the fact that the CCP is a murderous, genocidal, antidemocratic force that needs to be contained.
IIRC, the US did in fact "dunk" on Saudi Arabia after the Khashoggi murder, which kind of screwed them when they wanted cooperation to lower oil prices that wasn't given.
> Saudi Arabia's government is in favor of the United States, but their wealthy citizens often fund non-state actors to attack Western targets.
Can someone please (perhaps you if you're willing, s_q_b) help me clear this up once and for all?
Is there sponsorship of terrorism and other anti-Western activities coming from the rulers of Saudi Arabia?
I don't mean distant members of the royal family who are given control of minor ministries to shut them up, I mean those with whom the power genuinely rests.
I can fully believe that private Saudi citizens fund any random thing that they want to, but it stretches my credulity to believe those that hold the reins of power directly fund terrorism. They know full well they rely completely on the US for their continued existence.
Yes I am sure many a tear would be shed in the ranks of American elites many of whom are Muslim, Arab businessmen if the US decided tomorrow that they did not like the Saudis anymore and no longer wanted them to exist.
Drop the "enemy" talk. If there are good reasons not to do business with Saudi Arabia you can state them and if there are good reasons not to do business with America you can state those as well. None of that is relevant to whether there are good reasons to not do business with China.
"It's worth noting that for now the Saudis still retain a bit of leverage. They could potentially start a kamikaze run on the dollar. "
Do you have an idea of whether their increased production has affected the fracking production in the US? Would they, in the long-term, have success in making the US more dependent again?
"They are our largest regional ally, and in very close proximity to Israel... Finally, they're a vital partner in the ongoing war with Russia and its proxies (Iran et al.)"
As I understand it, the Saudi Royal family derives part of its legitimacy through the backing of the religious leaders of their country, and the Sunni world at large - but many of the Saudi family itself are actually more progressive than the conservative country. Is there any chance that they want to or could push back against the Wahhabist ideology that seems to spout from the gulf peninsula?
" We have very little knowledge of their nuclear program"
How is that possible? It'd seem as though their supplies of nuclear weapons are precisely the types that we want to be aware of at all times?
"Also, I cannot begin to fathom what would happen if a "Christian" nation invaded the keeper of Mecca and Medina...
I never thought I'd say this, but perhaps some secrets are better left untold."
When the cube was seized in 1979 and the Muslim world thought the US was to blame, we got the glimpses of what reactions could be. We'd truly see the Middle East in flames.
>In the light of Saudi Arabia's actions in Yemen, this statement is clearly false.
First, the CIA actions in Iraq make this almost certainly true. Yemen is a minor conflict in comparison. Even still, Saudi actions could not happen without the US. The blockade could not take place without US assistance, the bombs being dropped are from US manufacturing, and the raids dropping the bombs could not happen without US intelligence and air support.
>"My assumption is to prevent any future sanctions against the Saudi regime."
I'm not aware of any impending sanctions by the UN against Saudi Arabia. I haven't even heard this suggested. What would these be for? Can you elaborate?
> It's clear that the US government has no intention of stirring up trouble inside Saudi Arabia because they're the middle east country that likes money more than religion, and that makes them an important partner if not ally in taming the bat-shit crazy governments of other local countries, some of which we actually put in place.
The reason why the US doesn't go after them is because if they do, then it will bring to light USA's own role in these attacks.
> They actively undermine Americans and American security interests
NSO can be justifiably blamed for selling to a regime like Saudi Arabia, but it can't be blamed for undermining 'Americans and American security interests' when the American government itself does not see SA's actions as contrary to 'American security interests'.
NSO could at least argue that they did not predict beforehand that SA would go to such lengths - Khashoggi himself did not expect it - but the US obviously knew after the fact. Yet, the US keeps selling weapons to SA and applied no penalty.
We can't expect NSO Group to take a stricter view of 'American security interests' than the US government does.
Because of lots of historical precedent that the US values it's relationship with SA over any principled objection to bad behavior on the part of SA? Obviously there are lines that couldn't be crossed, but SA believes this murder wasn't one of them.
reply