Saudi Arabia started the Oil War to neutralize Iran

 
As the expression goes, " all politics is local", and that truism might apply to many situations too long to describe here; in the case of the OPEC overproduction it is precisely why Saudi Arabia started this market move.

While American media is fixated on what happens to its companies, they have overlooked the wider more important reality of oil price and purchasing power. Of course the stated reason why OPEC increased production was to increase market share.

Saudi Arabia tried to stop the Iran nuclear deal. They even sounded like Israel in the hopes that Obama would relent. They didn't work. Obama wants a legacy and isn't responsible for protecting Saudi Arabia. Any longer. In fact, with all the illicit support of wahabism and radical Sunni terror, it's more likely this is Obama's payback of Saudi intransigence.

Iran gave up a nuclear program to sell more oil in the wider market which was known to the Saudis as the deal deadline approached.  They faced an 86-million population enemy (in comparison to their 26 million ) that could bring an enemy army right up to Saudi borders with the permission of Iraqi leadership and assault.  The rise of ISIS also gave Iranian hard-liners the justification to enter into Iraq in force should the battle go poorly.  And go poorly it did last summer when Saudi production stayed over demand and started the run on over supply.  ISIS came within 150 km of Baghdad which when you look at that in context of Saudi local politics is a big problem.

In fact, the slow nature of Iraqi counter-offensive against ISIS / da'esh - barely gained Ramadi by January- gives the Iranians more and more justification to pressure Baghdad to let them launch Revolutionary Guard divisions straight into Mosul. This is exactly why the Saudis are now changing their tune towards foreign army / coalitions in Iraq.  Now they are offering their army to go into Iraq not just to defeat ISIS but to make sure that they don't leave a way open for Iran to follow them back.

Better to fight them over there than in your home is also a truism. And Saudi would rather drawn down their wealth than risk arming Iran with more expensive modern weapons.

From an unconventional perspective, having IS operating in Sunni territory acted like a buffer zone to protect one flank from Shia invasion.  They were a resistance point against invasion. IS  united the local population there and neither party trusts Baghdad and would fight Iranian forces on sight.

This is why Saudi has been foot dragging on attacking fellow Sunnis they might need in a few months. Only when greater threats appear through inaction does the kingdom change it's strategy.

So yes, Saudi Arabia wanted to bankrupt shale oil explorers in the US with expensive production costs. The US media can bore you with the dull interpretation of average reporters and journalists trying to remain relevant but aren't willing to do the heavy lifting of assessing data in sum.

But in the local context take all the factors lying in front of you and presented poorly, and reconstruct them along the skeleton I have laid out - remember I was the first person to link the Russian jet bombing to ISIS before they even admitted it was payback to Russia for Syrian invasion.

What is the US strategy in Arabia: Let them devour each other...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/foreign-affairs-defense/frontline-fight-for-yemen/on-the-ground-in-yemen-six-questions-with-safa-al-ahmad/

There are at least five factions within Yemen fighting for control: Houthis, AQAP, former president's rebels, current president's army,  Southerners, Northerners, and the Populist movement. 

With so many fragmented groups, how can any group take and hold ground? When alliances can be set at noon and the next lunch time they are sniping each other? One side attacks and there is vengeance the next day.

After supporting the ex president, the US cannot take a leadership role given the factions united to attack and remove the Yemeni president. That and drone strikes antagonized AQAP areas.

The US has swung to isolationist in the schizophrenic empire spectrum for Arabia.

So what is the most practical action to take? For the US, stay on the sidelines and let them devour each other is my prediction.

One cannot peace keep until they are exhausted. Groups that are not exhausted will continue until they are eradicated, or victorious.
 
The Houthis claim that it is the US and the Israel's policy to destroy Islam. The irony is they are perpetuating the US policy on their own....

Blunt the Antagonists

Why did the US expose the plan to attack Mosul?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/middleeast/iraq-isis-tikrit/index.html

They claim it's a warning to civilians that might want to flee in advance of the assault. But that's months away and if there isn't enough reason to leave Mosul today, it won't matter. It makes no sense.

So why then the warning?


Simple, the short goal is to win the war, the longer goal is to blunt all the aggressors.  If Iran is fighting on the side of Iraqi government forces, then the US does not want that to be an easy fight they want to attrit the Iranian forces as well because that makes them less of a threat in the future against Saudi and Jordanian forces.  Victory will come but the US planners are considering the outcome of current actions.

They warned ISIS to make them move forces forward to defend the advance which will make them easier to kill by exposing them on more fronts and then  forcing Iraqi forces to waste their strength against harder defenses in depth. 

The victory will come, but they can achieve a secondary goal of blunting ALL the antagonists. Sounds like karma to me for all those American casualties....