Start Preparing for the Collapse of the Saudi Kingdom

[Perrin75]

From the article:

For half a century, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been the linchpin of U.S. Mideast policy. A guaranteed supply of oil has bought a guaranteed supply of security. Ignoring autocratic practices and the export of Wahhabi extremism, Washington stubbornly dubs its ally “moderate.” So tight is the trust thatU.S. special operators dip into Saudi petrodollars as a counterterrorism slush fund without a second thought. In a sea of chaos, goes the refrain, the kingdom is one state that’s stable.

But is it?

In fact, Saudi Arabia is no state at all. There are two ways to describe it: as a political enterprise with a clever but ultimately unsustainable business model, or so corrupt as to resemble in its functioning a vertically and horizontally integrated criminal organization. Either way, it can’t last. It’s past time U.S.decision-makers began planning for the collapse of the Saudi kingdom.

 

[P.PattersonISwalkingthruthatdoor]

I find it difficult to believe that an autocratic theocracy propped up for decades by the bribery of its own citizens with the profits from a lucrative yet finite resource could somehow collapse.

 

[dgtatu01]

Saudi Aramco is about to IPO on the NYSE as well. There is no chance on Earth that I would invest in one of these state run enterprises. That goes for the Chinese stuff as well.

 

[joeyrupption]

There is no doubt that the government already has these scenarios worked out and this journalist isn't the lone genius soothsayer she's making herself out to be.

 

[UKserialkiller]

U.S sure will work a front for decades to get what it wants.

 

[slick rick.ksr]

"Hey brother, can you spare a riyal?"

 

[Hank Camacho]

U.S sure will work a front for decades to get what it wants.

And take it over when it later becomes inconvenient.

Mid 80s: "Hey Saddam, these Iranians sure are a pain in our asses and ohbytheway I see that you are in a war with them. Want some help?"

Somewhat later: "You really would look better with a longer neck."

 

[UKserialkiller]

And take it over when it later becomes inconvenient.

Mid 80s: "Hey Saddam, these Iranians sure are a pain in our asses and ohbytheway I see that you are in a war with them. Want some help?"

Somewhat later: "You really would look better with a longer neck."

Ha ha, exactly

 

[FutureCityCats_rivals]

I don't know these sort of things as well as most of you guys, but it seems to me that their oil profits have been cut in half. So they will have a new standard of living. Maybe they will figure out some high profit sale and new use of sand. FCC.

 

[rmattox]

Just do whatever is necessary to keep the price of gasoline where it should be....say around a buck fifty a gallon. Like you, Future, I don't know nearly as much about this crap as other guys, but I believe the current reduction in their oil profits is only a ploy. Once they drive competitors out of business....ie the small oil guys, they will make up for their losses by charging us around $4 a gallon. It's coming soon to a gas station near you.

 

[UKserialkiller]

Prolly doesn't help SA because of increased Iranian oil production.

After reading an article a few weeks ago, it has caused me to scale back the hate on GWB. Starting to change my opinion on him.

 

[krazykats]

The Iranian deal made the price of oil plummet. People hate giving Iran all that money because they are a known enemy for us. But if we could somehow turn them into an ally and trust them, trust being most important, that would be better than any other ally we've had there.

 

[slick rick.ksr]

There's no worse nut than a religious nut.....and that's what they are. There's little to no chance of the Iranians changing anytime soon.

 

[Dennis Reynolds]

The Saudi sovereign wealth fund had over $1b invested in my company's funds. One day last summer, they pulled the entire chunk with zero notice. We then learned a few weeks later that they had pulled something like $70b from US money managers in like a week cause they needed the cash. Not a good sign.

 

[UKserialkiller]

There's no worse nut than a religious nut.....and that's what they are. There's little to no chance of the Iranians changing anytime soon.

Yep, but Iran wasn't always fanatical. Hell, looking at photos from the 70s, you'd think Iran looked like NYC.

Guess they got fed up with the US after the US propped in a puppet leader. US sure screwed a lot of countries and then used propaganda to sell Iran off to the American citizens, who will believe anything.

 

[UKserialkiller]

The Saudi sovereign wealth fund had over $1b invested in my company's funds. One day last summer, they pulled the entire chunk with zero notice. We then learned a few weeks later that they had pulled something like $70b from US money managers in like a week cause they needed the cash. Not a good sign.

Whoa, really says a lot

 

[krazykats]

That's wild, who knows what political games are being played. I mean I can imagine if I saw America prop up Iraq and then crush them in a week only to have been an "ally" for decades and watch America give our #1 competitor and common enemy 600B I'd take issue with that and pull any assets I had to whether I needed them or not.

Seeing what that deal did to gas and how fast I'd say they did need that money, but when a country "needs" 70B it's time to cut the lights, right?

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

[QUOTE="Willy4UK, post: 4464363, member: 9964After reading an article a few weeks ago, it has caused me to scale back the hate on GWB. Starting to change my opinion on him.[/QUOTE]
Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by this? I've been a little out of the political loop for a few months...

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

I find it difficult to believe that an autocratic theocracy propped up for decades by the bribery of its own citizens with the profits from a lucrative yet finite resource could somehow collapse.

Collapse of the world dependence on oil will be the only thing that causes a Saudi collapse. Till then, its nearly impossible as you said.

 

[slick rick.ksr]

Yep, but Iran wasn't always fanatical. Hell, looking at photos from the 70s, you'd think Iran looked like NYC.

Guess they got fed up with the US after the US propped in a puppet leader. US sure screwed a lot of countries and then used propaganda to sell Iran off to the American citizens, who will believe anything.

Read "on The Wings of Eagles".
It's about Ross Perot's efforts to get his EDS employees out of Iran post- revolution. The very next day after the revolution women pulled their burkhas out of the closet. These people flip flop with no problem.

 

[KingOfBBN]

[QUOTE="Willy4UK, post: 4464363, member: 9964After reading an article a few weeks ago, it has caused me to scale back the hate on GWB. Starting to change my opinion on him.

Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by this? I've been a little out of the political loop for a few months...[/QUOTE]

Obama was the best thing that could have happened for Bush's legacy. He now gets viewed more favorably simply because Obama was worse.

 

[krazykats]

Obama has nothing to do with Bush and what he did. Had he not lied about WHY we hit Iraq he wouldn't have been so bad to most. A lot of what happened on his watch was out of his control.

Also, I hate on Obama mostly because he makes it so easy, but he isn't as bad as most say either. Most people don't have a clue what's going on in the world and ***** over stuff that doesn't impact their life at all.

 

[Violent Cuts]

SA has been at war with US economically for a while now. When fracking created a huge amount of oil, most thought KSA would lower production to keep prices high. Instead they flooded the market, lowering prices hoping it would bankrupt a lot of oil companies. I think about 40 have gone bankrupt in the past year so some think they're winning this war.

 

[UKserialkiller]

[QUOTE="Willy4UK, post: 4464363, member: 9964After reading an article a few weeks ago, it has caused me to scale back the hate on GWB. Starting to change my opinion on him.

Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by this? I've been a little out of the political loop for a few months...[/QUOTE]


Rex, essentially the US pulled a 60 yr old troll job. Played the part. Took along time to implement and now we're about to see the middle east go from destabilized to stablized once SA falls from power.

I think GWB fit right in line with following with that plan. Absolute brilliance.

 

[P.PattersonISwalkingthruthatdoor]

Yep, but Iran wasn't always fanatical. Hell, looking at photos from the 70s, you'd think Iran looked like NYC.

Guess they got fed up with the US after the US propped in a puppet leader. US sure screwed a lot of countries and then used propaganda to sell Iran off to the American citizens, who will believe anything.

The ironic part is that Iranians are some of the least religious (that is, theocratically-inclined) of all Muslim populaces, yet they're the ones who got stuck with a theocracy. I have a colleague who was literally on the streets of Tehran as a college student protesting the Shah. He says nobody at the time dreamed that those protests (and eventually revolution) would *actually* get hijacked by the clergy. Everyone assumed the population was immune to that sort of thing because they were so educated and so Westernized in so many ways.

He compared it to the way ISIS/etc hijacked the Syrian revelation.

 

[UKserialkiller]

Thanks for sharing that Jamo.

Sounds exactly how I've read about it.

 

[catfaninsc_rivals377375]

Looking at the numbers Saudi Arabia produces between 8.4 and 10.3 million barrels of oil per day. Daily production totals fluctuate, but it is generally between those two numbers for the last two years. Their maximum output capacity is 11 million barrels per day. Their cost of producing a barrel of oil is between $5.00-$10.00. They are sitting on 18% or 267 billion barrels of the worlds current total oil reserves.

They are not going to go broke any time soon even with oil currently selling at $43.00 per barrel.

For comparison the US produces 8.9 - 9.3 million barrels per day, has total reserves of 39 billion barrels 2% of the worlds total reserve and per barrel production cost of $30-$36.

 

[UKserialkiller]

Catfan nice find. The only I might add is that there is fear of going broke. They are spending too much on their social programs and didn't diversify their oil money enough. They are threatening to sell off their US assets as threat to us. May not be broke, but the fear is real.

They are essentially screwed. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

 

[Dennis Reynolds]

Based on the numbers above, they are going to run out in about 80 years. So, definitely just a matter of time.

 

[Big_Blue79]

The ironic part is that Iranians are some of the least religious (that is, theocratically-inclined) of all Muslim populaces, yet they're the ones who got stuck with a theocracy. I have a colleague who was literally on the streets of Tehran as a college student protesting the Shah. He says nobody at the time dreamed that those protests (and eventually revolution) would *actually* get hijacked by the clergy. Everyone assumed the population was immune to that sort of thing because they were so educated and so Westernized in so many ways.

He compared it to the way ISIS/etc hijacked the Syrian revelation.

Lebanon was that way, too. Now it's a mess, although they seem "stable" now (only in comparison to their full out civil war years, but still).

 

[Big_Blue79]

Rex, essentially the US pulled a 60 yr old troll job. Played the part. Took along time to implement and now we're about to see the middle east go from destabilized to stablized once SA falls from power.

I think GWB fit right in line with following with that plan. Absolute brilliance.

I think you give too much credit to the neo-conservative fantasies (take away neo-cons and GWB ain't half bad). They actually believed in their idealism. But the problem is that creating power vacuums in areas 1) with money, and 2) prone to extremism (thanks, Muhammad) without ready civil structures is inviting trouble in the form of ruthless regimes. Perhaps ironically, Iran could have been what neo-cons were looking for - they had the Westernized civil structure in place to be at least as tolerable as Turkey. But instead Iran flipped the other way, which started a whole host of problems, not the least of which is using SA to counter Iran.

Anyway, how does removing SA make the region more stable? I don't think regime change will eliminate or even really curb Wahabiism (sp?), and SA is home to Mecca and Medina (and that weird rock thing that goat herders used to worship) and probably 50 other "holy" sites. Hard to imagine a realistic regime change that will stabilize the Middle East. I'd be much less surprised at a secular Iran than a moderate SA. Not to mention that SA issues are largely about the price of oil and their own poor planning, so not sure where GWB actions are the key.

 

[UKserialkiller]

79- wish I could find that article again. It wasn't the neo cons idea. They were just playing their part in a very long term plan. Essentially, there was no way to stabilize it without destablizing first. Because once you get rid of SA you are taking the major funding out of terrorism. Damn I wish I could find that article. It explains it better than me.

 

[Big_Blue79]

^ would be very interesting to read it. Appreciate it.

 

[UKserialkiller]

^ would be very interesting to read it. Appreciate it.

Man, I'll do my best to find it. It was written in response to SA threatening to sell off US assets.