
Want to Punish Saudi Arabia? Cut Off Its Weapons Supply - sys_64738
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/opinion/saudi-arabia-arms-sales.html
======
relyio
It's funny how this article views weapons and equipment deals with Saudi
Arabia as a service the West is making for SA when in fact, that's just:

1\. Securing the supply lines of the West and the stability of the world
economy.

2\. SA playing nice with Western powers and thanking them for their support.
Not the other way around. The regional enemies of SA are Iran and Yemen. They
have a strong behind-the-scenes intelligence relationship with Israel. They
would do fine with Russian or Chinese weapons. Hell, they have enough money to
kick-off their own military industrial complex.

I don't think the details of the arms deal are public but I suspect a lot of
the money goes into "maintenance" from the weapons suppliers, not in
technology transfer. They remain a vassal state to the US.

Their domestic human rights situation is despicable and disgusting, and I hate
to find myself defending SA but the fake outrage over their foreign policy is
highly irritating. They are no worse _in that respect_ than any other country
in the world, in fact the scale of their direct malfeasance is mostly
regional. Countries with global reach have done worse in my eyes.

~~~
flyinglizard
That’s pretty much it. Cutting off weapon supplies never made countries less
belligerent - on the contrary, it lets them loose as they no longer have any
reigns.

The fastest way to lose global political influence is to send your allies to
buy weapons from your adversaries. How did it work with North Korea, Iran and
Syria?

When France cut off Israel’s weapon supplies in the late 1960s, all it did was
to accelerate the development of the Israeli defense industry and replacement
of all French hardware with US one. During this process, France lost any
political influence it might have had on Israel - and arguably, the region -
and irreversibly hurt its defense industry going forward.

That aside, Western ideals are just that in the Middle East - ideals. The
reality is somewhat more complicated.

So let them have weapons. Western weapons are at least more precise and less
crude than the alternatives. The worst wars were waged with teens wielding
AK47s, not with F15s dropping precision munitions. Taking away weapons will
not eliminate the underlying hostilities.

Finally, Saudi Arabia never pursued a nuclear program as it felt shielded by
the West. Taking away its means to defend itself would make it an immensely
more dangerous, rich and capable North Korea.

~~~
boomboomsubban
>The fastest way to lose global political influence is to send your allies to
buy weapons from your adversaries. How did it work with North Korea, Iran and
Syria?

What? Nothing like that situation happened in any of your examples. North
Korea went from Japanese to Soviet control due to WWII treaties, Iran revolted
against US control, and Syria happily bought US arms until the civil war
started.

>When France cut off Israel’s weapon supplies in the late 1960s, all it did
was to accelerate the development of the Israeli defense industry and
replacement of all French hardware with US one.

This is pretending that they ever really lacked the support of the US, or that
the UK support wasn't omnipresent as well. And, this directly contradicts your
last point, as Israel was already shielded by the West yet pursued a nuclear
program.

~~~
flyinglizard
Iran, North Korea and Syria are examples of countries that are a significant
threat without having any Western arms in their arsenal, and operate outside
of Western soft powers. The West is far from being the only arms supplier in
town, and when countries can’t rely on Western political, technological and
military support, it is very likely they will attempt to pursue WMDs to make
up for it (as done by all three) and use assymeteic warfare instead of
standing military (as done by Iran and Syria).

Israel was under a US arms export embargo up until the late 60s, for all
intents and purposes. Israel was never shielded by the West - there has never
been direct military intervention in Israel’s favor. This, combined with the
trauma left by the holocaust only couple of decades prior, and the calls to
the destruction of Israel - unprecedented that a country had its legitimacy
disputed like this in world politics - have made it pursue nuclear weapons.

It was the threat of those weapons, in part, that brought Israel closer to the
USA (see the emergency airlift of US military equipment to Israel during the
war of 1973). No one wanted a desperate, nuclear state with its back to the
wall.

Today, Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia behave in line with
Western interests because they feel embraced and protected. In the face of an
imminent threat from Iran, they rely on Western arms and support. Show them
you’re taking this support away for matters of public appearance, and the only
choice those countries would have is to develop WMDs, both for deterrence and
as the ultimate bargaining chip.

~~~
boomboomsubban
>Iran, North Korea and Syria are examples of countries that are a significant
threat without having any Western arms in their arsenal, and operate outside
of Western soft powers. The West is far from being the only arms supplier in
town, and when countries can’t rely on Western political, technological and
military support, it is very likely they will attempt to pursue WMDs to make
up for it (as done by all three) and use assymeteic warfare instead of
standing military (as done by Iran and Syria).

Really? They're the "threats?" How much Korean, Iranian, and Syrian blood is
on the hands of Western arms dealers? Any "threat" they pose is a direct
reaction to hostility from Western powers. If we want to stop the threat, we
should stop threatening them.

>Israel was under a US arms export embargo up until the late 60s, for all
intents and purposes. Israel was never shielded by the West - there has never
been direct military intervention in Israel’s favor. This, combined with the
trauma left by the holocaust only couple of decades prior, and the calls to
the destruction of Israel - unprecedented that a country had its legitimacy
disputed like this in world politics - have made it pursue nuclear weapons.

What? US started importing to Israel in 1960, and both France and the UK aided
Israel in the Suez Crisis, followed by heavy US support in the Yom Kippur war
as you mentioned. And if millions of your people getting killed followed by a
continued call for your destruction are legitimate reasons for a nuclear
program then nobody can object to North Korea's.

>Today, Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia behave in line with
Western interests because they feel embraced and protected. In the face of an
imminent threat from Iran, they rely on Western arms and support.

Or because the US is a far greater threat than Iran, given what they've done
in the region.

------
jayalpha
"Russia cannot produce next-generation fighter aircraft"

Russia may not have the money to build it in numbers, but for sure they have
the technology. The fighter aircrafts are very capable and the F-35 may well
be a one trick pony (can't fly fast, can't dog fight, can't carry a huge load,
needs tons of maintenance, is invisible to 3rd world countries and may or may
not be visible to China or Russia).

[https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/stealth-killer-
russia...](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/stealth-killer-russias-
sixth-generation-fighter-might-have-radio-photonic-radar-25361)

[https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-russian-
su-35-pilot-f...](https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-russian-
su-35-pilot-f-22-dogfight-2018-9)

This military blog says the US may not be able to match the Russians in
missile technology:
[http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/](http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/)

~~~
crdoconnor
I did a double take at this. The "next generation of fighter aircraft" is, in
all likelihood, fleet of cheap autonomous drones that can withstand high gee
maneuvers that will make a fighter pilot black out.

It's probably not very polite to say that sort of thing in military-industrial
complex circles though (too much money riding on the F-35).

------
chriselles
I’m awaiting the public disclosure of evidence of Khoshoggi’s murder.

At the macro human level this is simply disgusting what the Saudis have done.

At the macro geopolitical level this is a truly cringeworthy embarrassment for
the Saudis.

However, this is what happens when control of trillions of dollars of
essential natural resources is at stake.

I would remind Hacker News readers that millions were slaughtered in the 70’s
by the Khmer Rouge for control with none of the massive cashflow and
geopolitical influence stemming from it.

In other words, the blood will flow to ensure continuity of control & flow of
oil. Period.

Just look at Saudi actions in Yemen slaughtering everyone with reckless
abandon(mostly via proxy) as it represents a possible beachhead at bringing
down the Saudi regime.

Kind of like the Saudis in the role of the Germans at D-Day.

Military sales to Saudi serve 2 purposes:

1) Saudi/GCC military contracts are padded heavily to act as platforms for
massive kickbacks to GCC royal families and connected insiders.

Military sales are cashflow for corrupt GCC royals and insiders.

2) Military sales to the GCC represent petro-dollar recycling to balance trade
between GCC countries and their petro customers.

Check out the Al Yamamah arms deal between UK/Saudi that started in the
1980’s. Journalists found proof of corruption but further publication was
halted as a matter of national security due to pressure from the Saudis that
would have cancelled deals and led to the layoffs of tens of thousands of high
paying jobs.

Realpolitik is not an easy issue.

Selling military equipment to Saudi/GCC is a bad idea, but may be a less bad
idea as they do have options waiting in the wings(Russia/China).

Ultimately, I think Saudi Arabia will attempt to avoid becoming like the
Shah/Iran post 1979 much as China has avoided becoming like Russia post 1991.
Regardless of the volume of bloodletting,

The Mossad/Israel was publicly embarrassed with an assassination it conducted
in Dubai in 2010.

I doubt the Saudis care as much about their international reputation as the
Israelis.

~~~
Mediterraneo10
> The Mossad/Israel was publicly embarrassed with an assassination it
> conducted in Dubai in 2010.

Was it? So much of the news coverage of the Dubai assassination seemed to
focus on how intricate the operation was and how it worked like clockwork, all
very impressive. A team of spies spread out across Dubai, wearing disguises
and even successfully dealing with unforeseen obstacles, seemed pretty
romantic somehow, definitely more than a dissident just walking into his own
country’s embassy and being killed there. And Israel was probably well aware
of its agents being caught on CCTV, so the revelation of the operation was no
embarrassment for the Mossad. On the other hand, I’m sure the Saudis wish that
this whole episode could have passed unnoticed and that people would just
believe Khashoggi left the embassy of his own accord.

~~~
chriselles
I believe Israel was embarrassed.

But Israel also has had a longstanding Donald Trump-esque view of not caring
what other countries think.

For example, Israel has done some really dodgy things with NZ passports, got
caught with its hand in the proverbial cookie jar and was embarrassed
politically.

A few years later it did something similar again.

So I think embarrassment is a question of personal/national perspective.

From an operational standpoint, Israel may have permanently burned up to 2
dozen shooters and operational support personnel/facilitators from ever
conducting external operations again.

Those people take many years to vet, train, and trust.

That's a lot of expensive chess pieces to remove one bishop or rook.

------
onetimemanytime
Personally I think that, as a package, US weapons are best. Meaning that
Russia might have a better x weapon but that's it. Now the Saudi (Gov) is as
bad as they can be. But let's suppose that we trigger things that makes the
Saudi Royal family to go back to their desert roots (US TREAS can make their
life miserable if ordered, no matter how many assets they have
overseas)....will we be better with the replacement? What will _true_
democracy be like in Saudi Arabia when it comes to human rights?

As bad as it sounds, punishing, but not overthrowing them might be the best
option. Of course tighten this screw and loosen this one is a game, but if
played correctly they'll tow the line. Maybe show them a video of Muammar
Gaddafi's last minutes?

~~~
gaius
_as a package, US weapons are best. Meaning that Russia might have a better x
weapon but that 's it_

There’s no such thing as “best” in this game, because the enemy won’t give you
the fight you want, but the fight they want. Well, unless they as stupid like
Saddam was, but that’s not something you can count on.

------
hamilyon2
Russia is mentioned in article but is underestimated. The fact is they sure as
hell can sell aircraft, missiles and tanks. Even a few $billion diverted to
Russian military industrial complex would be huge loss for American foreign
politics, not to mention 20 billion a year.

~~~
IBM
The US can sanction anyone that buys Russian weapons, as they've done with
China and threatened to do with India [1][2].

[1] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-
sanctions/u-s-...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-
sanctions/u-s-sanctions-china-for-buying-russian-fighter-jets-missiles-
idUSKCN1M02TP)

[2] [https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/05/asia/india-s400-deal-
intl/ind...](https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/05/asia/india-s400-deal-
intl/index.html)

~~~
acd10j
And will lose one more Ally , Threatening and implementing a sanction to a
country like India would surely ruin a growing relationship.

------
IBM
The US should also freeze MBS' personal assets. No doubt it's in banks all
over the world.

~~~
onetimemanytime
And what....? Might as well support regime change in SA, because he'll ask for
Russian protection /weapons (think of Iran, balance of power etc).

Better to make him go into his pants a few times and remind him things like
Saddam, Qaddafi etc etc and how fast his regime can go. Remind him what would
happen to his power, money and family if USA stopped supporting them. USA can
send a fax and have MBS replaced. And by the way, release another 1 million
barrels of oil a day to lower the price.

~~~
craftyguy
Yea Iraq and Libya sure turned out OK for everyone after those regimes were
toppled. (Hint: they didn't)

I'd rather the US and NATO address the thousands of civilians that Saudi is
killing in Yemen. That's an excellent reason not to sell weapons to them, but
I must be the only one that thinks so...

~~~
onetimemanytime
They buy Russian weapons and keep killing. Russia will veto anything in the UN
for them. SA will in return do what Russia wants when it comes to OPEC.

So, what did we win? Scare the crap out of them or have the King choose a new
person to take over after he's dead.

------
tomohawk
The Turkish government is also acting recklessly and against human rights. If
they are the source of the info pointing at the Saudis, you have to wonder if
its a setup.

~~~
boomboomsubban
Which would just leave thousands of verifiable examples of Saudi Arabia's
horrible human rights.

------
intopieces
And tie both hands behind the back of our strongest ally in the upcoming war
against Iran? Unwise and unlikely.

------
product50
#unrelatedtothetopic

Maybe it is a signal of the current times we are in but I can't read a NYTimes
article talking about Trump/current administration and not feel conflicted
that it will biased against him/them. Indeed, one of the tragedies of the past
couple of years for me is this realization that even centuries-old trusted
press outlets like NYTimes are inherently biased (and doesn't represent the
thoughts on all Americans).

~~~
natch
The media is definitely biased against liars and the different flavors of
that: people who distort, spin, and misrepresent. And to be really direct
about it, Trump is all of those things. The fact is, the media _should_ be
biased against such people.

~~~
product50
Well - there is your bias. While I am not saying Trump is always truthful,
there are a small no. of things he is doing which are at least debatable (such
as his stance against China or the new UCMCA pact or the Tax Bill) but NYTimes
has never called those out in a thoughtful manner. All I get from NYTimes is
"how" Trump/GOP was able to force things through via politics in Congress vs.
the actual merits/demerits of the "thing" itself.

I feel WSJ is at least more neutral (but it could be leaning right though I am
not sure) and tries to analyze topics more principally vs.
emotionally/morally.

~~~
leesalminen
I’d agree about WSJ trying to be neutral.

Even my left leaning parents, both of whom are life long New York liberals,
have ditched NYT almost entirely and now read WSJ daily.

