Iran’s Rafsanjani Calls for Improving Relations With Saudis

[Mosamania]

Even if Iran and Saudis work out their differences as article suggests, Saudis side with Iran and would refuse to fill oil gap once Iran's exports are banned. All sanctions fall apart.

US absolutely wouldnt stand fully independent Saudis, lets look at the history:

a) Hussein was CIA agent, and was installed in Iraq by US. When he turned against US, he was killed.
b) Iran was under UK influence, but as soon as they became independent, coup in '53 by US to give all power to Shah. Once revolution happened, look how Iran is being treated. US is pushing for regime change by all means.
c) Gaddafi established friendly relationships with West, but once he turned against them - dead, his mutilated body is buried somewhere.
d) Taliban was once US ally, including Bin Laden. Need I continue?

Now lets look at Saudis - they are crucial oil supplier and a strategic partner, who follows US policies. US absolutely cant afford losing influence over such country, especially not in current situation. Its not like Saudis are pure democracy with no faults, it would be very easy for US to find reasons and get support for SA leadership change.

Lets look at realistic scenarios, assuming Saudis side with Iran:

US delegation immediately visits Saudis, with full mandate to use all means necessary to pursue Saudis to reverse its decision:

* Saudi ruler is coerced (by carrot or gun to his head, depending which works) and soon we'll hear "previous announcement was misunderstanding, we fully support US". (Most likely outcome)

* Saudi ruler refuses to cooperate further with US. He is removed from the power and replaced by his relative, who is more understanding from US perspective. (Also likely)

* All Saudis family grow independence and balls over night (good luck with that ), and US would have to resort to "uprising" to change Saudis leadership. US doesnt have time to play revolutions in SA now, they need full Saudis support and uninterrupted oil flow, but if US have no other choice, they can activate this plan as well.

Bottom line: if anyone thinks US would allow Saudis slip from their influence just like that, is just kidding himself. History and current US actions speaks loud and clear.

So you do agree that KSA is an independent and sovereign nation. this is not about "Standing up for Iran" this is about Iran who if wants to have better relations with us they are most welcome.

Rafsnajani even admits that in Iran a lot of law makers are whole heartedly against improving relations with KSA what does that telly you??

You say "he is removed from power" just like if it was button they press and that's it. It doesn't work like that not by a long shot.you clearly are filled with what we established previously as "Misunderstandings".

 

[Harry_Thomason]

So you do agree that KSA is an independent and sovereign nation. this is not about "Standing up for Iran" this is about Iran who if wants to have better relations with us they are most welcome.

Rafsnajani even admits that in Iran a lot of law makers are whole heartedly against improving relations with KSA what does that telly you??

I never said SA doesnt have any independence, but they arent fully free to make own foreign policies which would interfere with US goals. Surely Saudis and Iran could have a great cultural relationships, or something else US doesnt care about

Its all about cost/benefit:

* With US Saudis can prosper as much as they want, enjoy all the luxury in the World. They get full protection - both military, and politically. UN is looking the other way while SA can have zero democracy, ban demonstration, or kill opposition - West doesnt care, as long as Saudis are playing US ball.

* If Saudis turn against US, suddenly they have no protection, including from UN. Americans wouldnt just lose a crucial country to geopolitical dominance in the region, but also wouldnt be able to do anything against Iran - cant ban both Iran and Saudi oil.

US doesnt allow countries with crucial importance to slip away from their influence, and as history shows - US will do everything in its power to restore previous situation. Iran already faced this twice over last 60 years, and I showed many other examples.

So Saudis decision is purely profit and self-preservation, which means following US lead.

You say "he is removed from power" just like if it was button they press and that's it. It doesn't work like that not by a long shot.you clearly are filled with what we established previously as "Misunderstandings".

Depends if its easy or hard, but almost always doable. US did it easily when installing Hussein, they did easily in Iran '53 and lots of other countries. Sometimes its quite hard - like US is trying for 30 years to install puppets in Iran, again. However if country is strong and have majority of population support - it gets complicated, but US never stops trying. Do you think Iran is having a great time?

What concerns specifically Saudis, I dont think it would be that hard to change leadership - if its another Saudi family member, its relatively easy swap, and I very much doubt citizens would object either. Extra bonuses for all, and they would cheer for the new king

If its 3rd choice from my post above - full change of SA leadership through "revolution". It works too - like in Libya, or currently tries in Syria, etc. Even though you may think Saudis have powerful military - its really not what concerns US - they would simply switch-off their provided high-tech equipment, and Saudi family would face US wrath with barely anything. If you think Hussein fell quick - Saudi would fall even faster.

 

[dawud123]

Even if Iran and Saudis work out their differences as article suggests, Saudis side with Iran and would refuse to fill oil gap once Iran's exports are banned. All sanctions fall apart.

US absolutely wouldnt stand fully independent Saudis, lets look at the history:

a) Hussein was CIA agent, and was installed in Iraq by US. When he turned against US, he was killed.
b) Iran was under UK influence, but as soon as they became independent, coup in '53 by US to give all power to Shah. Once revolution happened, look how Iran is being treated. US is pushing for regime change by all means.
c) Gaddafi established friendly relationships with West, but once he turned against them - dead, his mutilated body is buried somewhere.
d) Taliban was once US ally, including Bin Laden. Need I continue?

Now lets look at Saudis - they are crucial oil supplier and a strategic partner, who follows US policies. US absolutely cant afford losing influence over such country, especially not in current situation. Its not like Saudis are pure democracy with no faults, it would be very easy for US to find reasons and get support for SA leadership change.

Lets look at realistic scenarios, assuming Saudis side with Iran:

US delegation immediately visits Saudis, with full mandate to use all means necessary to pursue Saudis to reverse its decision:

* Saudi ruler is coerced (by carrot or gun to his head, depending which works) and soon we'll hear "previous announcement was misunderstanding, we fully support US". (Most likely outcome)

* Saudi ruler refuses to cooperate further with US. He is removed from the power and replaced by his relative, who is more understanding from US perspective. (Also likely)

* All Saudis family grow independence and balls over night (good luck with that ), and US would have to resort to "uprising" to change Saudis leadership. US doesnt have time to play revolutions in SA now, they need full Saudis support and uninterrupted oil flow, but if US have no other choice, they can activate this plan as well.

Bottom line: if anyone thinks US would allow Saudis slip from their influence just like that, is just kidding himself. History and current US actions speaks loud and clear.

So the only way is a revolution like Iran.