I dislike the phrase "kenetic diplomacy" because it is such a soft phrase for mass killing. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client didn't murder that man. He merely kinetically deterred him on a long-term basis."
Separate point: the author (and others) might be interested in the study done by Professors Caverley and Savage on the correlation between coups and the presence of US special forces. They "identified 275 military-backed coups that occurred worldwide between 1970 and 2009. In 165 of them, members of that country’s armed forces had received [US] training the year before the coup. … American trainees succeeded in overthrowing their governments in 72 of the 165 coup attempts."
I have to add a couple of nits to this article. Trump may have run on a platform of bringing the troops home and spending money on America first, but he has clearly changed his platform. To call Trump “isolationist” is simply not in accordance with the facts.
The article states “Bolton, however, has been a prominent advocate of U.S. intervention abroad to oust hostile governments...” To intervene is, as the root suggests, to come between two disputing parties. The word “intervention” has been used often in the media this week. Bolton does not advocate intervention is a distant dispute but advocates starting a dispute, to conquer simply because the United States has the power.
When I think of the moral justification for war on a spectrum, repelling an attacker is the most easily justified. Some feel justification for preemptive war but only when attack is imminent. Others may advocate preemptive war when attack is not imminent, on the basis that waiting merely will allow an opponent to gather forces or strength.
At the far end of the spectrum are those who believe war is justified simply because some other country doesn’t do what the U.S. wants, or because the U.S. covets its territory or resources, or desires to redraw national boundaries for the benefit of allies. These are the true radicals, the most violent extremists, and John Bolton is a leader of this camp.
The question the U.S. press never asked this administration and the last is where the ISIS fighters were going after the war. They weren't locals mostly, they were mercenaries along with tens of thousands of other mercenaries. The Tony Blair foundation had a good article on the groups, the numbers and the origins.
Did the mercenaries go back to their home countries? Were they going to be insurance adjusters and CPAs? Were their sponsors going to stop paying them (and who were they)? And the Syrian fighters, were they going back to their hometowns to be farmers and shopkeepers? Or would these soldiers of fortune use their expertise and continue to seek that fortune?
There was an old American TV show about an Army private. He was portrayed as a naive southern country boy easily astounded by the obvious. The soldier’s name was Gomer Pyle and his trademark line was “Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!”
Gomer Pyle was a character played an actor. The U.S. armed forces are not actors. Or maybe they are.
“They tend to think that the men who flew the planes were from Iran”.
And whose fault is that? Try this: go to your favorite daily media website. In the search function, look for articles using the phrase "Saudi terrorist" or "Saudi Arabian terrorist" in the date range 9/1/01 to 6/1/03. You'll likely be surprised to find that our esteemed media rarely if ever used those phrases. In fact, they went out of their way to not use the word Saudi in connection with 9/11.
What the people believe is dependent largely upon simple repetition. That is how a majority of Americans decided to believe that Iraq attacked the World Trade Center and the Russians hacked state voting machines in 2016 and changed the vote count.
I posted this comment a week ago to another article here:
It seems to me that one of the primary goals of the US, UK, Israel and Saudi (GCC) in Syria was to eliminate how Iran uses Iraq and Syria as a pathway towards Lebanon and to the Mediterranean. If the US or its proxies control eastern Syria, won't the US coalition have achieved this goal?
It seems to me that one of the primary goals of the US, UK, Israel and Saudi (GCC) was to eliminate how Iran uses Iraq and Syria as a pathway towards Lebanon and to the Mediterranean. If the US or its proxies control eastern Syria, won't the US coalition have achieved this goal?
Professor Cole, do you have knowledge of the Iranian political process to explain to us how Khaminei would have the power to institute such a ban? Rouhani is In charge of the executive branch and of course the legislature makes the laws. Did the legislature proposal bill in this regard?
Also unclear is the extent of the ban. Six years of English is required for all Iranian students. Does this ban apply only to private schools or are public schools also affected?
Odd. An entire article about Saudi Arabia and nuclear weapons without mentioning that Saudi paid for a large portion of Pakistan's nuclear program.
Also, it would have been nice if the author had researched whether the Iran JCPOA has any provisions about other mideast countries developing nuclear technology or nuclear weapons.
Professor Cole, do you have thoughts on the odds of whether these CIA-released documents are authentic?
We know that bin Laden spent years on the run. Does it seems odd that he would bring tens of thousands of documents with him? Particularly documents that dealt with events so long ago?
Dr. Cole posits “three causes for the shift in Saudi Arabia’s security stance: the Arab uprisings of 2010 and 2011, the policies of the Obama administration and the collapse of oil prices.” I agree, and I would add two more reasons.
The first is that Saudi is strongly opposed to democracy. This has been a theme in the mideast for a long time. When Iran threw out its dictator and became a democracy, Saudi rallied the other Arab dictatorships to form the Gulf Cooperation Counsel as a counterweight to the spread of democracy. When a democratic movement arose in Bahrain, Saudi gave an immediate response with troops and tanks to brutally put it down. Saudi supported the coup in Egypt which converted it from a democracy to an ultra-conservative Muslim dictatorship. Saudi has supported Erdogan in Turkey, who is doing his best to turn that country into an ultra-conservative Muslim dictatorship. Saudi’s complaint with Syria is that it is not an ultra conservative Sunni Muslim dictatorship who will take direction from Riyadh (e.g., the pipelines). Yemen is merely target practice for the Saudi air force, not an ideological fight.
The second reason seems to be Saudi’s desire to spread ultra-conservative Muslim beliefs throughout the Islamic world. This effort spans 25 years and billions spent to assemble a truly impressive number of schools, universities, and mosques. Saudi has made a huge push into Indonesia, Malaysia and Bangladesh in the past few years. Likewise Saudi’s involvement in east Africa. I don’t know why Saudi desires the spread of Sunni extremism, but it does.
As a result, I wouldn’t agree with the headline that Saudi Arabia is “paranoid” or that it is “sudden.”
I would ask, “What does Saudi Arabia’s 25 year campaign to radicalize the world’s Muslims mean for the future of the world order? And why does the US support Saudi’s efforts?”
I write to ask you a small favor. As you know, we chose to violate international law and conquer part of Syria a few years ago. My country would like Russia to recognize this conquest and induce Syria to accept it. If it wouldn’t be too much trouble, we would also like you to keep Russian troops at least 40 miles away from the new border, and to use Russian power to prevent Syria and Iran from placing any troops in that buffer zone.
Yes, I know we’ve criticized Russia’s activities in Syria, Ukraine, Georgia and elsewhere as odious and morally reprehensible. But you know what we say here, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, unless Israel is the goose.
Your cooperation in this matter is much appreciated.
Put me in the group of skeptics about this attack being an error. Dr. Cole writes "Air strikes from 30,000 feet are always open to being inexact." However, the US Military stated in its press releases that the attack was done with both F-16s and A-10 Warthogs. A Warthog is basically a flying .50 cal machine gun and therefore flies low and slow when it attacks. The recipient of the attack was an army base with twin mile-long runways, in a sparsely-populated area. It's on Google Maps, take a look.
So long as the pilots' eyes were open there could be no mistaking what they were hitting. I'd like to know how many military planes were on the ground, and how many were shot with those .50 cal gatling guns. Is the US military going to say that the pilots can't distinguish a military plane?
The US military and politicians have debated for years whether to force a no-fly zone on Sryia. Maybe what we just saw was the beginning of that. Maybe what happened proved that at least part of the US military supports ISIS. Surely what happened proved that the US doesn't think much of the ceasefire.
@William: you say "to state that the resulting government would likely “export radical terrorism throughout the region” but “would generally do what America wants” is so self-contradictory it does not require comment."
Huh? That is only contradictory if you assume that the US does not accept the spread of radical Sunni dictatorships in the region. You apparently see it that way.
I don't. The US supported the coup in Egypt which installed a Sunni dictatorship. The US supported the brutal oppression of the Arab Spring in Bahrain by a Sunni dictatorship. The US created a vacuum in Libya and knows it will be filled by a Sunni dictatorship. Likewise in Syria.
The US Secretary of State said in a secret memorandum that donors in Saudi Arabia still "constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide" and that "it has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority".
Yet...the US considers Saudi Arabia to be America's closest ally in the region; approved the largest arm sales in history to Saudi Arabia; and stands by while Saudi and the GCC fund radicals throughout the Mideast, Central Asia and beyond. The President hasn't so much as made a speech against the funding of radical schools and mosques around the world.
William, I think you need to examine your premises.
- Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Qatar want pipelines from the Persian Gulf across Iraq and Syria to Europe. This makes more money for them, and helps reduce the EU's reliance on Russian natural gas.
- Plus it allows the GCC dictatorships to undercut gas prices by Iran and extract more, more quickly from the Persian Gulf fields that the GCC shares with Iran. Anything anti-Iran is good for the neocons who run America's foreign policy.
- It's striking how the pipelines never get mentioned by the press.
- I'll agree that based upon the US proclamations it doesn't seem like the US has any interests in Syria. The US never talks about its goals, or who would run Syria if Assad left tomorrow. Any astute observer knows that there are no moderates who are in a position to take over. The result most likely would be a Wahhabi dictatorship that will export radical terrorism throughout the region (I predict Lebanon is next), but one that would allow the pipelines, oppose Iran, and generally do what America wants.
@rabbit: Every sailor does have a GPS unit. It's called a phone.
If the boat's GPS doesn't work, they are equipped with a VHS radio locator.
Each boat also has radar. You'd think that if this was a mistake in navigation as the Navy claims, two helmsmen and two skippers might wonder how an island floated in front of their path.
Each boat has a compass. It's right in front of the wheel. In a five-hour cruise you'd think that two helmsman and two skippers might notice that heading E is not the same as the SE direction of Bahrain.
"Ultimately Syria can only be healed by democracy and the separation of religion and state. Neither the regime nor the rebels get this, and there is no guarantee they ever will."
It seems that the rebels (read: mercenary terrorists) get that, but healing is not their goal. Their goals appear to be, in no particular order:
1. Establish a radical Sunni theocracy. Oppress all who disagree, by any means handy or capricious.
2. Whoever wins among the many fighting groups will become dictator and a trillionaire. This is war as entrepreneurship.
3. The funders of the mercenaries are equivalent to venture capitalists. They expect a return on investment.
4. Removing Assad will permit the completion of the planned Sunni-run pipelines from the Persian Gulf to the Med, in opposition to Iranian interests and Russian interests.
It seems to me that national healing has nothing to do with it, just as death, destruction and diaspora are of no concern to the mercenaries and their funders.
Agreed. These groups aren't different ideologically. They differ only in their competing interests. Whichever Salafist radical leader gains control of Syria will become a multibillionaire. To think that any of them would trust the US to be a reliable ally is simply nuts. The US has proven to be untrustworthy in dealing with mideast players (go ask the Taliban, or Gaddafi, or Assad for that matter). To think that the US could trust any of them is simply nuts.
The Saudi/GCC funders of these mercenary fighting groups are like venture capitalists sprinkling funds among various startups in a particular sector. They win no matter which Salafist leader wins the war. Any Islamic radical will be fine, so long as he is (a) Sunni, (b) Salafist, and (c) a loyal member of the GCC.
Starting with that pipeline project across Syria, from Iraq to the Med, that the American press doesn't seem interested in writing about.
The idea of getting Russia, US/UK, and Assad together to broker a settlement is unrealistic. Any settlement must first address the competing interests of the GCC and Russia about that pipeline.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
Seventy Years of the New York Times Describing Saudi Royals as Reformers
link to jadaliyya.com
I dislike the phrase "kenetic diplomacy" because it is such a soft phrase for mass killing. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client didn't murder that man. He merely kinetically deterred him on a long-term basis."
Separate point: the author (and others) might be interested in the study done by Professors Caverley and Savage on the correlation between coups and the presence of US special forces. They "identified 275 military-backed coups that occurred worldwide between 1970 and 2009. In 165 of them, members of that country’s armed forces had received [US] training the year before the coup. … American trainees succeeded in overthrowing their governments in 72 of the 165 coup attempts."
link to thenation.com
I have to add a couple of nits to this article. Trump may have run on a platform of bringing the troops home and spending money on America first, but he has clearly changed his platform. To call Trump “isolationist” is simply not in accordance with the facts.
The article states “Bolton, however, has been a prominent advocate of U.S. intervention abroad to oust hostile governments...” To intervene is, as the root suggests, to come between two disputing parties. The word “intervention” has been used often in the media this week. Bolton does not advocate intervention is a distant dispute but advocates starting a dispute, to conquer simply because the United States has the power.
When I think of the moral justification for war on a spectrum, repelling an attacker is the most easily justified. Some feel justification for preemptive war but only when attack is imminent. Others may advocate preemptive war when attack is not imminent, on the basis that waiting merely will allow an opponent to gather forces or strength.
At the far end of the spectrum are those who believe war is justified simply because some other country doesn’t do what the U.S. wants, or because the U.S. covets its territory or resources, or desires to redraw national boundaries for the benefit of allies. These are the true radicals, the most violent extremists, and John Bolton is a leader of this camp.
The question the U.S. press never asked this administration and the last is where the ISIS fighters were going after the war. They weren't locals mostly, they were mercenaries along with tens of thousands of other mercenaries. The Tony Blair foundation had a good article on the groups, the numbers and the origins.
Did the mercenaries go back to their home countries? Were they going to be insurance adjusters and CPAs? Were their sponsors going to stop paying them (and who were they)? And the Syrian fighters, were they going back to their hometowns to be farmers and shopkeepers? Or would these soldiers of fortune use their expertise and continue to seek that fortune?
There was an old American TV show about an Army private. He was portrayed as a naive southern country boy easily astounded by the obvious. The soldier’s name was Gomer Pyle and his trademark line was “Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!”
Gomer Pyle was a character played an actor. The U.S. armed forces are not actors. Or maybe they are.
“They tend to think that the men who flew the planes were from Iran”.
And whose fault is that? Try this: go to your favorite daily media website. In the search function, look for articles using the phrase "Saudi terrorist" or "Saudi Arabian terrorist" in the date range 9/1/01 to 6/1/03. You'll likely be surprised to find that our esteemed media rarely if ever used those phrases. In fact, they went out of their way to not use the word Saudi in connection with 9/11.
What the people believe is dependent largely upon simple repetition. That is how a majority of Americans decided to believe that Iraq attacked the World Trade Center and the Russians hacked state voting machines in 2016 and changed the vote count.
I posted this comment a week ago to another article here:
It seems to me that one of the primary goals of the US, UK, Israel and Saudi (GCC) in Syria was to eliminate how Iran uses Iraq and Syria as a pathway towards Lebanon and to the Mediterranean. If the US or its proxies control eastern Syria, won't the US coalition have achieved this goal?
It seems to me that one of the primary goals of the US, UK, Israel and Saudi (GCC) was to eliminate how Iran uses Iraq and Syria as a pathway towards Lebanon and to the Mediterranean. If the US or its proxies control eastern Syria, won't the US coalition have achieved this goal?
Professor Cole, do you have knowledge of the Iranian political process to explain to us how Khaminei would have the power to institute such a ban? Rouhani is In charge of the executive branch and of course the legislature makes the laws. Did the legislature proposal bill in this regard?
Also unclear is the extent of the ban. Six years of English is required for all Iranian students. Does this ban apply only to private schools or are public schools also affected?
Odd. An entire article about Saudi Arabia and nuclear weapons without mentioning that Saudi paid for a large portion of Pakistan's nuclear program.
Also, it would have been nice if the author had researched whether the Iran JCPOA has any provisions about other mideast countries developing nuclear technology or nuclear weapons.
Professor Cole, do you have thoughts on the odds of whether these CIA-released documents are authentic?
We know that bin Laden spent years on the run. Does it seems odd that he would bring tens of thousands of documents with him? Particularly documents that dealt with events so long ago?
Dr. Cole posits “three causes for the shift in Saudi Arabia’s security stance: the Arab uprisings of 2010 and 2011, the policies of the Obama administration and the collapse of oil prices.” I agree, and I would add two more reasons.
The first is that Saudi is strongly opposed to democracy. This has been a theme in the mideast for a long time. When Iran threw out its dictator and became a democracy, Saudi rallied the other Arab dictatorships to form the Gulf Cooperation Counsel as a counterweight to the spread of democracy. When a democratic movement arose in Bahrain, Saudi gave an immediate response with troops and tanks to brutally put it down. Saudi supported the coup in Egypt which converted it from a democracy to an ultra-conservative Muslim dictatorship. Saudi has supported Erdogan in Turkey, who is doing his best to turn that country into an ultra-conservative Muslim dictatorship. Saudi’s complaint with Syria is that it is not an ultra conservative Sunni Muslim dictatorship who will take direction from Riyadh (e.g., the pipelines). Yemen is merely target practice for the Saudi air force, not an ideological fight.
The second reason seems to be Saudi’s desire to spread ultra-conservative Muslim beliefs throughout the Islamic world. This effort spans 25 years and billions spent to assemble a truly impressive number of schools, universities, and mosques. Saudi has made a huge push into Indonesia, Malaysia and Bangladesh in the past few years. Likewise Saudi’s involvement in east Africa. I don’t know why Saudi desires the spread of Sunni extremism, but it does.
As a result, I wouldn’t agree with the headline that Saudi Arabia is “paranoid” or that it is “sudden.”
I would ask, “What does Saudi Arabia’s 25 year campaign to radicalize the world’s Muslims mean for the future of the world order? And why does the US support Saudi’s efforts?”
Dear Vladimir,
I write to ask you a small favor. As you know, we chose to violate international law and conquer part of Syria a few years ago. My country would like Russia to recognize this conquest and induce Syria to accept it. If it wouldn’t be too much trouble, we would also like you to keep Russian troops at least 40 miles away from the new border, and to use Russian power to prevent Syria and Iran from placing any troops in that buffer zone.
Yes, I know we’ve criticized Russia’s activities in Syria, Ukraine, Georgia and elsewhere as odious and morally reprehensible. But you know what we say here, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, unless Israel is the goose.
Your cooperation in this matter is much appreciated.
Best Regards,
Bibi
Put me in the group of skeptics about this attack being an error. Dr. Cole writes "Air strikes from 30,000 feet are always open to being inexact." However, the US Military stated in its press releases that the attack was done with both F-16s and A-10 Warthogs. A Warthog is basically a flying .50 cal machine gun and therefore flies low and slow when it attacks. The recipient of the attack was an army base with twin mile-long runways, in a sparsely-populated area. It's on Google Maps, take a look.
So long as the pilots' eyes were open there could be no mistaking what they were hitting. I'd like to know how many military planes were on the ground, and how many were shot with those .50 cal gatling guns. Is the US military going to say that the pilots can't distinguish a military plane?
The US military and politicians have debated for years whether to force a no-fly zone on Sryia. Maybe what we just saw was the beginning of that. Maybe what happened proved that at least part of the US military supports ISIS. Surely what happened proved that the US doesn't think much of the ceasefire.
@William: you say "to state that the resulting government would likely “export radical terrorism throughout the region” but “would generally do what America wants” is so self-contradictory it does not require comment."
Huh? That is only contradictory if you assume that the US does not accept the spread of radical Sunni dictatorships in the region. You apparently see it that way.
I don't. The US supported the coup in Egypt which installed a Sunni dictatorship. The US supported the brutal oppression of the Arab Spring in Bahrain by a Sunni dictatorship. The US created a vacuum in Libya and knows it will be filled by a Sunni dictatorship. Likewise in Syria.
The US Secretary of State said in a secret memorandum that donors in Saudi Arabia still "constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide" and that "it has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority".
Yet...the US considers Saudi Arabia to be America's closest ally in the region; approved the largest arm sales in history to Saudi Arabia; and stands by while Saudi and the GCC fund radicals throughout the Mideast, Central Asia and beyond. The President hasn't so much as made a speech against the funding of radical schools and mosques around the world.
William, I think you need to examine your premises.
William, America does have interests in Syria.
- Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Qatar want pipelines from the Persian Gulf across Iraq and Syria to Europe. This makes more money for them, and helps reduce the EU's reliance on Russian natural gas.
- Plus it allows the GCC dictatorships to undercut gas prices by Iran and extract more, more quickly from the Persian Gulf fields that the GCC shares with Iran. Anything anti-Iran is good for the neocons who run America's foreign policy.
- It's striking how the pipelines never get mentioned by the press.
- I'll agree that based upon the US proclamations it doesn't seem like the US has any interests in Syria. The US never talks about its goals, or who would run Syria if Assad left tomorrow. Any astute observer knows that there are no moderates who are in a position to take over. The result most likely would be a Wahhabi dictatorship that will export radical terrorism throughout the region (I predict Lebanon is next), but one that would allow the pipelines, oppose Iran, and generally do what America wants.
@rabbit: Every sailor does have a GPS unit. It's called a phone.
If the boat's GPS doesn't work, they are equipped with a VHS radio locator.
Each boat also has radar. You'd think that if this was a mistake in navigation as the Navy claims, two helmsmen and two skippers might wonder how an island floated in front of their path.
Each boat has a compass. It's right in front of the wheel. In a five-hour cruise you'd think that two helmsman and two skippers might notice that heading E is not the same as the SE direction of Bahrain.
Professor, I'm curious about the last paragraph:
"Ultimately Syria can only be healed by democracy and the separation of religion and state. Neither the regime nor the rebels get this, and there is no guarantee they ever will."
It seems that the rebels (read: mercenary terrorists) get that, but healing is not their goal. Their goals appear to be, in no particular order:
1. Establish a radical Sunni theocracy. Oppress all who disagree, by any means handy or capricious.
2. Whoever wins among the many fighting groups will become dictator and a trillionaire. This is war as entrepreneurship.
3. The funders of the mercenaries are equivalent to venture capitalists. They expect a return on investment.
4. Removing Assad will permit the completion of the planned Sunni-run pipelines from the Persian Gulf to the Med, in opposition to Iranian interests and Russian interests.
It seems to me that national healing has nothing to do with it, just as death, destruction and diaspora are of no concern to the mercenaries and their funders.
Agreed. These groups aren't different ideologically. They differ only in their competing interests. Whichever Salafist radical leader gains control of Syria will become a multibillionaire. To think that any of them would trust the US to be a reliable ally is simply nuts. The US has proven to be untrustworthy in dealing with mideast players (go ask the Taliban, or Gaddafi, or Assad for that matter). To think that the US could trust any of them is simply nuts.
The Saudi/GCC funders of these mercenary fighting groups are like venture capitalists sprinkling funds among various startups in a particular sector. They win no matter which Salafist leader wins the war. Any Islamic radical will be fine, so long as he is (a) Sunni, (b) Salafist, and (c) a loyal member of the GCC.
Starting with that pipeline project across Syria, from Iraq to the Med, that the American press doesn't seem interested in writing about.
The idea of getting Russia, US/UK, and Assad together to broker a settlement is unrealistic. Any settlement must first address the competing interests of the GCC and Russia about that pipeline.