ADVERTISEMENT

US arming Saudi's to fight Iranian terror groups in Yemen

22*43*51

HB Legend
Nov 23, 2008
16,430
4,299
113
SANAA, Yemen (AP) - Iran dispatched a naval destroyer and another vessel Wednesday to waters near Yemen as the United States quickened weapons supply to the Saudi-led coalition striking rebels there, underlining how foreign powers are deepening their involvement in the conflict.


Iran's English-language state broadcaster Press TV quoted Rear Adm. Habibollah Sayyari as saying the ships would be part of an anti-piracy campaign "safeguarding naval routes for vessels in the region."



The maneuver comes amid an intense Saudi-led Gulf Arab air campaign targeting the Yemeni rebels, known as Houthis, who come from a Shiite sect. Critics say Shiite power Iran backs the Houthis, though both the Islamic Republic and the rebels deny any direct military assistance.



Speaking a day earlier in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken blamed the violence in Yemen on the Houthis, and forces loyal to former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, saying that the U.S. is committed to defending Saudi Arabia.



"We have expedited weapons deliveries, we have increased our intelligence sharing, and we have established a joint coordination and planning cell in the Saudi operations center," he said in a statement to reporters after meeting with Saudi royals and Yemen's President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, who fled his country amid rebel advances.



Intelligence sharing includes making available raw aerial imagery the coalition could use to better strike anti-Hadi forces, said a U.S. defense official who was not authorized to comment publicly. Blinken said the U.S. and the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council must coordinate closely and press all parties to seek a political solution.
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/file-thursday-march-26-2015-file-photo-provided-photo-100314515.html

The Gulf Arab-backed air campaign supporting Hadi, which began on March 26, has so far failed to stop the Houthis' advance on Aden, Yemen's second-largest city, which was declared the provisional capital by Hadi before he fled.



The U.S. says that the chaos has allowed the local al-Qaida branch, which it considers the world's most dangerous wing of the group, to make "great gains" on the ground, causing Washington to rethink how it prevents it from launching attacks in the West.



Speaking from Tokyo, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said the collapse of the central government in Yemen makes it harder to conduct counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida, which has ambitions to strike Western targets, including the United States. Regarding the weapons deliveries, he said it involved "some resupply of equipment and munitions" to Saudi Arabia.



The World Health Organization warned Tuesday of an unfolding humanitarian crisis, saying at least 560 people, including dozens of children, have been killed, mostly in the air campaign and ground battles. The aid group said that over 1,700 people have been wounded and another 100,000 have fled their homes as fighting has intensified over the past three weeks.



The first boat carrying medical aid to Yemen since the coalition began bombing arrived in the southern port city of Aden on Wednesday, international humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders said.



The group's head of mission in Yemen, Marie-Elisabeth Ingres, said the ship carried some 2.5 tons of supplies from Djibouti for its hospital in Aden.



The group is concerned about how it will transport the supplies and wounded people given the chaos in Aden's streets, where the situation continues to deteriorate and combat intensified overnight.



"We have street fighting, snipers, tanks in the street, roads cut and areas not accessible, and electricity, water and fuel cuts," she said. "Last night the different groups were fighting around the hospital. It lasted all night into the morning and continues now, so all our employees were forced to sleep at the hospital."



Tons of desperately needed aid awaits clearance to be flown into Yemen, including a Red Cross shipment with 17 tons of medical supplies from Jordan which emergency workers hope can be flown into the Yemeni capital, Sanaa, on Wednesday. Another 35 tons of supplies were also ready for shipment.



Also Wednesday, Human Rights Watch cited witnesses as saying that Houthi forces fired into crowds of demonstrators in the cities of Taiz and Torba the day before the bombing campaign began, killing at least 7 people and wounding over 80 others. The New York-based group called on Houthi authorities to investigate the incidents.



"Yemen's spiraling conflict is causing a calamitous breakdown in law and order," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "Security forces in control, whatever side they are on, have responsibilities to uphold and protect people's rights and to take action against their members who commit abuses."

More confusing foreign policy.
 
Originally posted by naturalmwa:
This seems smart.
In the bigger picture... I have issues with Kerry sitting at a peace table with a country that is actively, directly, sponsoring terrorist groups(AQ groups) in an overthrow attempt against two of our "allies".

The concessions that the purposed treaty is lifting were put in place because Iran was openly supporting terrorist groups while trying to weaponize uranium.

They are still doing those things openly against our interests, but we are lifting sanctions anyway.

Very bold on their part. Very confusing on our part.(to put it nicely)
 
Originally posted by 22*43*51:
Originally posted by naturalmwa:
This seems smart.
In the bigger picture... I have issues with Kerry sitting at a peace table with a country that is actively, directly, sponsoring terrorist groups(AQ groups) in an overthrow attempt against two of our "allies".

The concessions that the purposed treaty is lifting were put in place because Iran was openly supporting terrorist groups while trying to weaponize uranium.

They are still doing those things openly against our interests, but we are lifting sanctions anyway.

Very bold on their part. Very confusing on our part.(to put it nicely)
I heard on one news program that the sanctions enacted because of terrorism are not being lifted. Just the ones that deal with Uranium are on the table. Considering that we need partners to keep these sanctions effective and our partners want to lift them, the way we talk about sanctions as a US centric decision is a little odd IMO.
 
Originally posted by naturalmwa:


Originally posted by 22*43*51:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
This seems smart.
In the bigger picture... I have issues with Kerry sitting at a peace table with a country that is actively, directly, sponsoring terrorist groups(AQ groups) in an overthrow attempt against two of our "allies".

The concessions that the purposed treaty is lifting were put in place because Iran was openly supporting terrorist groups while trying to weaponize uranium.

They are still doing those things openly against our interests, but we are lifting sanctions anyway.

Very bold on their part. Very confusing on our part.(to put it nicely)
I heard on one news program that the sanctions enacted because of terrorism are not being lifted. Just the ones that deal with Uranium are on the table. Considering that we need partners to keep these sanctions effective and our partners want to lift them, the way we talk about sanctions as a US centric decision is a little odd IMO.
What is the difference. Why would we want to lift either when they are openly supporting AQ?
 
I don't know the difference in what each group of sanctions covers. But if some sanctions are likely to be lifted no matter what we do, we might as well try to get something for them, right? IMO, our discussions and commentary has vastly overstated the strength of the US bargaining position with Iran. They are just months away from the bomb and they have trading partners eager to do business. Frankly it's a wonder we got them to do anything let alone do almost everything we want. If the final agreement shapes up like the outline, it will be a pretty fantastic outcome.
 
Originally posted by naturalmwa:
I don't know the difference in what each group of sanctions covers. But if some sanctions are likely to be lifted no matter what we do, we might as well try to get something for them, right? IMO, our discussions and commentary has vastly overstated the strength of the US bargaining position with Iran. They are just months away from the bomb and they have trading partners eager to do business. Frankly it's a wonder we got them to do anything let alone do almost everything we want. If the final agreement shapes up like the outline, it will be a pretty fantastic outcome.
I just don't know how you can trust a country that is supporting an agenda of our destruction.

May as well lift the N. Korea sanctions while were at it.
 
Originally posted by 22*43*51:
Originally posted by naturalmwa:
I don't know the difference in what each group of sanctions covers. But if some sanctions are likely to be lifted no matter what we do, we might as well try to get something for them, right? IMO, our discussions and commentary has vastly overstated the strength of the US bargaining position with Iran. They are just months away from the bomb and they have trading partners eager to do business. Frankly it's a wonder we got them to do anything let alone do almost everything we want. If the final agreement shapes up like the outline, it will be a pretty fantastic outcome.
I just don't know how you can trust a country that is supporting an agenda of our destruction.

May as well lift the N. Korea sanctions while were at it.
I agree, but the whole point of most any arms agreement is that neither side trusts the other so you structure a system based on verification and fulfillment. Trust isn't an issue.
 
Originally posted by 22*43*51:
Originally posted by naturalmwa:


Originally posted by 22*43*51:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
This seems smart.
In the bigger picture... I have issues with Kerry sitting at a peace table with a country that is actively, directly, sponsoring terrorist groups(AQ groups) in an overthrow attempt against two of our "allies".

The concessions that the purposed treaty is lifting were put in place because Iran was openly supporting terrorist groups while trying to weaponize uranium.

They are still doing those things openly against our interests, but we are lifting sanctions anyway.

Very bold on their part. Very confusing on our part.(to put it nicely)
I heard on one news program that the sanctions enacted because of terrorism are not being lifted. Just the ones that deal with Uranium are on the table. Considering that we need partners to keep these sanctions effective and our partners want to lift them, the way we talk about sanctions as a US centric decision is a little odd IMO.
What is the difference. Why would we want to lift either when they are openly supporting AQ?
I don't think Iran is supporting AQ. Houthis and AQ fight each other IIRC.
 
Originally posted by gusto79:
Originally posted by 22*43*51:
Originally posted by naturalmwa:


Originally posted by 22*43*51:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
This seems smart.
In the bigger picture... I have issues with Kerry sitting at a peace table with a country that is actively, directly, sponsoring terrorist groups(AQ groups) in an overthrow attempt against two of our "allies".

The concessions that the purposed treaty is lifting were put in place because Iran was openly supporting terrorist groups while trying to weaponize uranium.

They are still doing those things openly against our interests, but we are lifting sanctions anyway.

Very bold on their part. Very confusing on our part.(to put it nicely)
I heard on one news program that the sanctions enacted because of terrorism are not being lifted. Just the ones that deal with Uranium are on the table. Considering that we need partners to keep these sanctions effective and our partners want to lift them, the way we talk about sanctions as a US centric decision is a little odd IMO.
What is the difference. Why would we want to lift either when they are openly supporting AQ?
I don't think Iran is supporting AQ. Houthis and AQ fight each other IIRC.
Yeah. I was afraid I was going to have to step in. So many people are so sure of themselves about bombing and killing yet can't even keep the players straight.

It's the Saudis who supported and funded many AQ and related groups (including ISIS) and that's what they are doing now. AQ and the Houthi are battling for control of Yemen. SA is hitting the Houthis on behalf of AQ. We are supporting SA. We are supporting AQ.

In other words, it must be Wednesday.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT