Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill....
Given how they're having to liquidate assets to sustain their low oil price policy, this is partly a hollow threat absent a reversal of it.
That's more or less on the point, more likely that the Saudi's need to liquidate those assets anyhow, it just gives them a way to save face.
It could also be quite likely that the US also just wants to "save face" by passing this bill and the timing is just right for both countries to get what they want/need.
Given the situation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and the more or less lack implementation of the P5+1 nuclear treaty with Iran I would say that any fallout has less to do with this bill but with something else (that was also mentioned in this article) - potential restrictions on sale of arms to Saudi Arabia (which spent about 100bln this past decade on Arms from US and Canadian companies).
"Last week, two senators introduced a resolution that would put restrictions on American arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which have expanded during the Obama administration."
If these 2 legislatures are part of the same bill (which isn't uncommon due to how hard it is to actually pass a bill in the US these days) that's more likely to be what actually poked the bear or well the more like the camel in this case.
Not that easy, their entire military is based on western arms, retooling and retraining your entire army isn't that easy, the retooling part is especially not cheap GL hacking your Russian guided bombs (if they agree to sell them to you) to work with US aircraft, sensors, and command and control tech etc, yes it's possible but it's not like well gosh we can't buy US cars any more, screw GM, MG here we come, you can't just switch over.
Also both China and Russia don't just export anything, in some cases it would be harder to buy from them than from many Western nations.
Yep, there is no lock-in like in the defense industry, mostly because you want to make sure who they can later "lock-on" too ;).
Oddly enough of the US some how stops selling guided munitions to Saudi Arabia, Israel is probably going to replace them.
Their weapons work with both NATO/Western and Russian systems, and Israel is reportedly already supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia mainly white-labeled drones through South Africa.
Iran and Saudi Arabia are "mortal enemies" on many levels, India is an option but it co-develops allot of its weapons with Israel.
Also don't confuse overt and covert politics in the Middle East.
There's allot of posturing and pretense on the surface but allot of cooperation under it.
Israel and Saudi Arabia are as close to allies as they can be in the current geopolitical landscape.
If any of those assets are in the US, isnt that exactly what the proper use of emminent domain is for? That being said, Im guessing they are speaking about US assets in SA.
At least 13 of the hijackers were from SA. The wahhabi sect of Islam is the most violent and intolerable. We need to put SA in their place, which really angers me when I realized just how cozy the Bushes and other oil oligarchs are to them, and cover for them constantly.
Once again, overthrowing and installing regimes has backfired in the long game.
> Im guessing they are speaking about US assets in SA
You didn't read the article carefully enough then:
> > Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750
> > billion in treasury securities and other assets in
> > the United States before they could be in danger of
> > being frozen by American courts
While I've no love lost for the Saudis, this doesn't seem an unreasonable position. If the US passed a law that might make me liable for virtually unlimited damages, you can be sure I'd be looking at moving my assets elsewhere.
I can't find that text of the proposed amendment, but based on the description in the NY Times, there doesn't seem to be any explicit mention of Saudi Arabia, just an additional stipulation under which foreign governments can be sued in American courts, the stipulation being something along the lines of "if a foreign government was involved with an attack on American soil killing American citizens, their immunity does not apply."
There are already several instances where the immunity already does not apply. For example:
> Stipulates that a foreign state is not immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts if: (1) the state has waived its immunity either explicitly or by implication; (2) the action is based upon specified commercially related activities; (3) the action is based upon rights in specified property, connected with commercial activity, taken in violation of international law; (4) the issue is rights in U.S. property acquired by succession or gift or rights in immovable U.S. property; or (5) money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the U.S. and caused by the tortious act or omission of the foreign state or its official or employee acting within the scope of his office or employment.
So, I think this is a pretty small and reasonable change, to which Saudi Arabia is reacting so extremely because, as "everyone knows" and as likely revealed in the unreleased portions of the 9/11 report, the Saudi royal family and/or people in the Saudi government were, in fact, involved in the events of 9/11.
The Saudis, of course, have to give a somewhat-reasonable sounding diplomatic explanation of why they would be "forced" to take their assets out of the country - that's how the game is played. Since we know that there are already holes in the immunity that could potentially leave the Saudis open to "unlimited damages" (I don't see any indication the damages are unlimited), we have to conclude the Saudis believe they will, in fact, be found culpable in this instance. Now, you can choose to believe that the Saudis believe that because they believe the US court system is just grossly unfair, or because some of the royal family or the government actually were involved, and they're afraid they would be correctly found culpable. I find the latter more likely, given the information we already have, personally.
It goes without saying the Foreign Minister is going to provide a reasonable-seeming cover: that's his job. Selling off 750 billion and destabilizing your own economy is not a rational action. Every billionaire is at the risk of his assets being frozen and seized if he committed a crime. So is every corporation. So, really, are foreign governments, regardless of whether they were complicit in an act of terrorism, given the immunity is not absolute. Nobody else is threatening to take their ball and go home. So why, then, would SA be threatening to do this? Because it makes for a substantial political threat to the US to pressure the US government to not hold them accountable.
In the end, I suspect it's really about a loss of face for the royal family, because realistically, even if sued and found complicit, it would be incredible if they were forced to give up a few billion, let alone hundreds of billions.
I dont disagree, but I was mostly referring to the installing of the house of Saud by the British in the first place. How apt you mention another place the Rhodesian Anglo Saxon dominance group did the same thing!
I recently learned that some of the first concentration camps, far before the world wars, were setup by the Brits in SA and they put the Dutch in them...
I digress though. What I was trying to say is that this pattern of overthrowing a place and installing a dictatorship friendly to our interests has repeatedly backfired eventually, so perhaps we should think of different strategies.
> overthrowing a place and installing a dictatorship friendly to our interests has repeatedly backfired eventually, so perhaps we should think of different strategies
While I fervently agree with you as a matter of principle, as a practical matter letting the people have their say in government and instigating a popular revolution to overthrow a dictator has backfired spectacularly too on many occasions. Geopolitics is hard.
We're still dealing with the fallout of the collapse of that empire.
btw, since I've noted an apparent acceptance on HN of the official story of "Islamic terrorism", let me merely direct the thinking reader to investigate 14 centuries of history of this religion and correlate patterns of behavior. A good and informative data point is the so called "Great Game", and later (in 70s) the amazing syncro-ballet that over night turned Middle Eastern militant groups from following Marx, Lennin, Trotsky, Mao, and uncle Ho into fervent followers of the Prophet of Islam.
I'm not so sure. The Saudi low-oil-price policy has been ruinous for some American domestic oil companies. There intentions may be more long-founded than the current flurry of coverage intimates. They may have been preparing for this for the past 2-3 yrs.
Given how they're having to liquidate assets to sustain their low oil price policy, this is partly a hollow threat absent a reversal of it.