The Mecca Pact’s First Test Has Exposed Its Central Weakness

[Goenitz]

Yeah because we have crazies in our country that will start attacking Pakistani's for Iranians or Houthis who don't give a F about them. But I think people expecting MDA to get into action just within 2 months of signing it is really stupid, shows the low IQ these people have. Like i said these PACT's takes time to develop, and KSA has to officially ask for military help from Pakistan/Turkiye in order for them to send, its not like Pakistan become Maula Jutt and start throwing Gandasay and Axe at Houthis, Pakistan can only provide air cover and do some Air strikes which KSA is very well capable of doing by themselves, they have the air power, bombs and they just have to keep dropping from the same distance, real test of MDA is to bring an end to this escalation via peaceful means.

lols.
If we hire some professionals, then they are expected to do the job right away.
Houthis only have the terrain advantage, which can be mitigated by resources available at SA's disposal.
Also, defence, like health, is a critical issue. One cannot postpone it for better timing. One has to act at that very instant with whatever resources are available.

 

[Mighty_Dragon_Strike]

Saudi Arabia itself is not doing any ground invasion against Yemen. So what can allied nations do?

Saudi Arabia has shown a lot of patience against both Iran and the Houthis. There is a thin line between being patient and coward so I think Saudi Arabia should act now to suppress these Houthi terrorists

when houthis were advancing, we lost time, we should have bombed then..

would have resulted in better negotiating position with 1. KSA 2. Houthis 3. USA

we lost the negotiating advantage and are now left behind to bargain anything!

price will be paid by the general public!

 

[Goenitz]

when houthis were advancing, we lost time, we should have bombed then..

would have resulted in better negotiating position with 1. KSA 2. Houthis 3. USA

I was thinking it was as designed, as PLC didn't fight at all and gave away critical and better equipment.
The motive I considered was that if this strait gets closed, then the whole world (not SA alone) would act and find a sustainable solution. In doing so, perhaps Hormuz can also be negotiated, as the oil price has crossed the 100 mark.

 

[Mighty_Dragon_Strike]

I was thinking it was as designed, as PLC didn't fight at all and gave away critical and better equipment.
The motive I considered was that if this strait gets closed, then the whole world (not SA alone) would act and find a sustainable solution. In doing so, perhaps Hormuz can also be negotiated, as the oil price has crossed the 100 mark.

i dont understand, what you have written here!

but, I will answer, what my POV is:

we are always behind, where (list below)

1. in building petroleum reserves
2. pricing natural gas well enough to recover price
3. allocation/rationing of petrol even in the times like these
4. in finding alternates as against concentration of service providers or sellers
5. in determining, if one routes goes offline, what should we do then?
6. negotiating resources timely


and, if SOH was blocked, what about alternate suppliers, which were used by EU and other countries, there are so many alternate oil providers..atleast 10!


why are we so pathetic, reactive, impulsive and incompetent!

 

[Blain2]

If attacking Mecca is not a red line what is the red line, can anyone elaborate

Attack on Makkah was all hearsay. No real threat has materialized in the Makkah governorate.

 

[Goenitz]

i dont understand, what you have written here!

but, I will answer, what my POV is:

and, if SOH was blocked, what about alternate suppliers, which were used by EU and other countries, there are so many alternate oil providers..atleast 10!


why are we so pathetic, reactive, impulsive and incompetent!

I meant Iran wants a deal. It would try to escalate the situation before the Nov election.
Similarly, SA is also fed up that it cannot use the Hormuz and not the Mandeb now (before peacefully).

Therefore, SA wanted a resolution but assessed that its backed PLC didn't have the capacity to defeat the Houthis. It was later proved when they laid down their weapons. Now, this issue has at least made the route a global problem. So, SA might have asked PLC to get back so it can become a global issue so all:
1) either go against the Houthis for a permanent solution, or
2) negotiate with both Iran and the Houthis to find a settlement for a permanent ceasefire.

 

[Abdul q]

Who has forgotten many false flag attacks during early iranian response to get Azerbaijan and Turkey involved?? Secondly Free KSA from terrorists

 

[r3alist]

Just because you sign a pact does not mean every action is a joint military action automatically


Anyone who can't understand that should go pink

Even NATO was essentially a deterrent against an extreme soviet invasion


It's obviously been signed during unprecedented instability so that will have to be weathered, in fact the pact might have to get creative because I don't see stability soon and I don't see adversaries letting it nicely fructify

 

[r3alist]

An alliance intended to deter adversaries ultimately depends less on the capabilities its members possess than on whether potential opponents believe those capabilities will actually be employed on one another’s behalf

That's slightly outdated


These days it's about collective security with an overarching architecture , you may declare this arrangement without needing to say it's against anyone because ultimately it's there for collective strength

When that builds up the challengers to it ARE THE ADVERSARY

An Alliance Without a Clearly Defined Enemy

See above, if you are bktheri you might be an adversary

 

[Mighty_Dragon_Strike]

I meant Iran wants a deal. It would try to escalate the situation before the Nov election.
Similarly, SA is also fed up that it cannot use the Hormuz and not the Mandeb now (before peacefully).

Therefore, SA wanted a resolution but assessed that its backed PLC didn't have the capacity to defeat the Houthis. It was later proved when they laid down their weapons. Now, this issue has at least made the route a global problem. So, SA might have asked PLC to get back so it can become a global issue so all:
1) either go against the Houthis for a permanent solution, or
2) negotiate with both Iran and the Houthis to find a settlement for a permanent ceasefire.

Saudis are'nt going to negotiate (based on understanding and experience!)

basically, Saudis (I hope im not banned!) are most favored in this region, to enforce the laws of the global establishment (beyond anything, I would be send to gallows, so you have to connect the dots diplomatically!)

pact, is nothing, just an excuse for the global establishment to move pawns, nothing else!

power comes from controlling source and origin of wealth (not financial wealth!), else just wishes!), which is only possessed by the CIA. Rest are just stooges, playing their acts!

world is all a stage, to fool us!

 

[Abdul q]

Unfortunately the Saudi will get local support from Pakistan as those madrassa generations and madrassa brigade still exists in our society….

 

[Mighty_Dragon_Strike]

I meant Iran wants a deal. It would try to escalate the situation before the Nov election.
Similarly, SA is also fed up that it cannot use the Hormuz and not the Mandeb now (before peacefully).

Therefore, SA wanted a resolution but assessed that its backed PLC didn't have the capacity to defeat the Houthis. It was later proved when they laid down their weapons. Now, this issue has at least made the route a global problem. So, SA might have asked PLC to get back so it can become a global issue so all:
1) either go against the Houthis for a permanent solution, or
2) negotiate with both Iran and the Houthis to find a settlement for a permanent ceasefire.

another way to answer your post!

Let me try to explain the whole affair by way of an analogy. In the video, between 1:59 and 2:43.

The couple in the video can tell when the wrong mask is worn, yet neither can identify the true face, for both are forever changing masks to conceal it.

This pact strikes me in much the same fashion: its timing and its architects are merely changing masks before our eyes.

Beneath all this theatrical performance, I suspect, very little has actually changed.

because, people who want to change the parameters of reality dont seek pacts, like King Faisal, was actually trying to do!

 

[Goenitz]

Just because you sign a pact does not mean every action is a joint military action automatically


Anyone who can't understand that should go pink

SA lifeline or oil supply is in danger. If we cannot support covertly at least, on such a core issue, they are better off without us.

 

[PjShark]

Just because you sign a pact does not mean every action is a joint military action automatically


Anyone who can't understand that should go pink

Even NATO was essentially a deterrent against an extreme soviet invasion


It's obviously been signed during unprecedented instability so that will have to be weathered, in fact the pact might have to get creative because I don't see stability soon and I don't see adversaries letting it nicely fructify

I don't disagree that Pakistan/Turkey shouldn't become cannon fodder for Saudi adverturism, but there has to be a balance.

If Saudi territory, bases, infrastructure and trade are being attacked, then at some point the pact has to produce something more than statements. That could be air defence, ISR, logistics, naval protection, weapons support or, depending on the escalation, direct military involvement.

Otherwise what exactly is being deterred? What is the point of the pact if there is no meaningful solidarity or strategic alignment when one member is actually under attack?

I also don't recall seing a clause for preexisting conditions.

The pact doesn't have to mean blindly following Riyadh into Yemen. But it also can't mean that every inconvenient conflict gets carved out the moment collective defence becomes costly/unpopuloar.