Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: siempre who wrote (51589)	6/25/2004 12:00:03 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 793888

I suspect that al-Muqrin was killed because AQ is now threatening the Royals directly by destabilizing the Kingdom. The Royals simply cannot tolerate this. I have doubts that the Royals, as hated by AQ as they are, could ever have a dialogue with AQ which would allow the Royals to survive. I suspect that the Royals decided to make the rift official and stop trying to mollycoddle AQ.

To: siempre who wrote (51589)	6/25/2004 2:44:57 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 793888

Whether the Saudis acted rationally in killing al-Muqrin is a very complex issue. I submit that his death is irrelevant and, perhaps, not a bad thing from the Royals' standpoint. Here are the reasons I think so. 1.- AQ hates the Saudi Royals; 2.- AQ knows or should know that it cannot replace the Royals because the US will never allow it to take over SA in any kind of formal way; 3.- As a result, the Royals have a more or less free hand with respect to AQ, so that if AQ takes a step that the Royals can't countenance, AQ will suffer. I think this is the dynamic with respect to al Maqri. AQ overstepped its bounds and as a result he was killed immediately after the fact as a signal to AQ to stay in line. 4.- AQ will seek to slowly and patiently replace the influence of the Royals by taking steps that destabilize their rule but which do not bring American military power to bear. Thus, the same bargain that has existed previously will remain, except it will grow and become a large scale phenomenon. If AQ oversteps, the Royals will have an important AQ leader killed or take other steps to keep it in line. 5.- There will never be an out and out war between AQ and the Royals because such a war will inevitably bring in the US, something neither side wants. However, there will be a lot of pushing and pulling between the two to gain influence and financing. AQ's goal is [or should be] to maintain and grow its influence in SA by rocking the boat but not sinking it. Thus, IMO AQ and the Royals will work out an uneasy compromise that gives both a little of what they want but not all. The dynamics for this compromise are clearly in place. I think the report you linked ignores this. Thus, the death of any one leader is irrelevant. Maqri was dispensable. 6.- Against all this is Iran as a backdrop. Its developing nuclear weapons are a huge source of concern to the Royals. Whether it will cast a greedy eye on SA remains to be seen. Only the Royals, however, have the resources to protect SA from the Iranians. I guarantee you that the recent Iranian nuclear efforts have made the Saudis very nervous. How this will play out remains to be seen. I always thought that one the smartest things Bush did after the Gulf War was not to depose Saddam, though it came with a price, because Saddam was a marvelous cost-free [well, sort of] bulwark against the Iranians. Although he had his eyes on SA, he also kept the Iranians at bay, thereby protecting the Royals. C2@whatatangledweb.com