USA Planning 20 Billion $ Arms Sale to Saudi Arabia

metro

New Member
Most modern equipment offered by the big european NATO members doesn't include american equipment.
Sweden has this problem with the Gripen but most other countries do not.
You still consider us part of NATO, right?:)

Europe has the full range of modern ground equipment, air assets and seagoing vessels for sale which is not including american equipment.

Especially with ground equipment USA lacks some modern offers for potential customers as well as for coastal ships and SSKs.

And the past teached us that the Saudis have no problem buying their stuff alson in europe and the US did nothing against it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for "fair" competition, especially after Gorbachev (spl?) went off on us the other day, "Americans are sick, with some illness, a 'Winners' complex..." If the major NATO powers, with some others, did something smart, as in set some global objectives, collaborate on different systems that everyone can add their expertise to, and then create a division of labor among the country's for production...
Then again, I can already see the problems;)
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
@ metro

Waylander pre-empted me on the one with US blocking Euro sales of items with US technology in them. But it does happen, as the US recently blocked the Spanish deal with Venezuela. But that is slightly different, as venezuela is not currently a security partner to the US...

I'll take it easy ;), and just add the point that Saudi takes care of Saudi security interests. They cannot ever hope to produce the range and quality of weaponry needed for the defence of SA. So they must import. They can do that from the US, UK, France, Russia and China.

The reasons why SA prefer Western arms is out of historical reasons; because of mutual economic interest i.e. supplier/consumer of oil/arms; and most importantly, because US/Europe is able to project decisive power into the region. This is a thing Russia/China cannot do.

The Americans came rapidly to the protection of SA in 1990, Desert Shield.

I also note the diverse inventory of the Saudi armed forces. it seems to serve two aims. 1) Not to get overly dependant on one supplier, and get better deals. 2) To ensure the relationship with more than one Western country.

So to say that SA can be controlled by US or others is just so...

SA and the West enjoy mutual interests. Currently that means to curb Iranian regional ambitions. Iran very much wish to assert itself against SA and the smaller Gulf states. This they cannot do, as long as the West has a game changing presence in the Gulf. That means the Gulf states may be tied up with the west, but enjoy an independence that shines compared with taking dictates from Teheran, which btw is supplied by Russia and China - making it even more unlikely that SA will turn significantly towards Russia/China for arms.

0.02€
 

Viktor

New Member
Is this deal as well as otheres (Israel/UEA/Egypt) part of US aid to midle East countries or just anounced weapon sales that those Countries ordered... Can someone please explaine?
 

SaudiArabian

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #44
is supplied by Russia and China - making it even more unlikely that SA will turn significantly towards Russia/China for arms.
excuse me but i have a comment on this :)

the Saudi Strategic missiles force is all Chinese weapons and the Chinese provided training for Saudi personnel inside the Chinese nuclear bases in the 80's

also on the last visit of President Hu Jintao to the Kingdom , a military contract/agreement been signed and that is official but they said no word what that defense deal is about.

however, the number (4.7 Billion $) was rumored (note its a rumored price not real nor official) on that deal inside the Kingdom
 

SaudiArabian

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #45
Is this deal as well as otheres (Israel/UEA/Egypt) part of US aid to midle East countries or just anounced weapon sales that those Countries ordered... Can someone please explaine?
for UAE , and the other Gulf states , it is weapon sales

for israel and Egypt , it is foriegn aid
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
excuse me but i have a comment on this :)

the Saudi Strategic missiles force is all Chinese weapons and the Chinese provided training for Saudi personnel inside the Chinese nuclear bases in the 80's
I'm aware of this. This is a thing the West for sure will not provide to anyone in the ME. I used "significant" in my above post for this very reason. It is of marginal importance in this context.

Btw, no nation is going to produce nuclear weapons or designs, then export them. Small bits of knowledge and technology, yes, but rarely anything enabling.

also on the last visit of President Hu Jintao to the Kingdom , a military contract/agreement been signed and that is official but they said no word what that defense deal is about.

however, the number (4.7 Billion $) was rumored (note its a rumored price not real nor official) on that deal inside the Kingdom
If true - arms sales need not have been part of it - a qualified guess could be some ESM system and perhaps some SP arty. or related to the BMs discussed above. ;)
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
On the contrary, Israel pays very little on direct military spending thanks to massive amounts of annual US military aid. I don't have the exact figure to hand sorry, but it is multi-billions US$ per year.
About $3 billion per year, recently. Egypt gets maybe 50% less.

Israeli domestic military spending is still pretty high. US aid covers a large part, but nowhere near all, of the procurement budget, but nothing else, e.g. no construction, pay, etc. There's also some German aid - e.g. recent Israeli submarine purchases have been heavily subsidised by Germany, & Germany donated some Patriot missiles.

Merkava, & other Israeli-built weapons, are mostly paid for domestically. Most (but IIRC not all, nowadays) US aid can only be spent on US-made equipment. This has led to Israeli firms investigating the possibility of setting up US production lines, & Israel asking German firms if they can build in the USA, in order to qualify for US aid money.

Israel's domestic economy could never support the capability deemed necessarry for her defence - which in real terms means total dominance against the myriad of nations surrounding it....
Absolutely. Assume that Israel would have spent more on procurement, maybe sacrificing something else, without US aid, & you still have to assume the Israeli armed forces would have maybe 50% of their current hardware, or still be stretching out some of the old, retired kit.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Googled a bit, found this:

[...]

Israel, long since the US' top recipient of foreign aid, will receive USD 2.4 billion. Since 1979 and the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, Israel has annually received up to USD 3 billion in aid.

As part of with an initiative by then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the civilian aid has been steadily decreased over the course of the past 10 years, going from USD 1.2 million to being completely cancelled this year. At the same time military aid to Israel has increased from USD 1.8 billion to USD 2.4 billion.

Egypt received the second largest aid package from the US and will receive USD 1.3 billion in military aid as well as USD 415 million in civilian aid. Jordan will receive USD 264 million in economic aid as well as USD 200 million in military aid.

[...]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3362402,00.html

It says million, but probably mean billion...
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
You still consider us part of NATO, right?:)
QUOTE]

For sure, I never intended something else!

I just wanted to say that europe can offer a wide variety of combat systems (Be it sea, air or land) without beinf dependent on the US.

On the land market I would even rate the euros as being slightly ahead of the US.

I did not want to say that Europe should go its own way!
 
Most (but IIRC not all, nowadays) US aid can only be spent on US-made equipment. This has led to Israeli firms investigating the possibility of setting up US production lines, & Israel asking German firms if they can build in the USA, in order to qualify for US aid money.
About 27 percent of US Aid to Israel is allowed to be spend on acquistions from local defence industries.
 
Last edited:

merocaine

New Member
Hosseini accused the U.S. on Monday of inflaming tensions in the region to further its weapons sales.

"Americans have pursued a particular policy in the region: creation of fear and concern among regional countries in order to prepare an opportunity for selling arms," he was quoted as saying.

The Israeli and Egyptian proposals would lock in U.S. aid commitments for the next 10 years. The total for Israel would rise from $2.4 billion to about $3 billion a year, and Egypt would continue to receive $1.3 billion a year.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is expected to announce the proposed aid deals and a proposed arms sales package to Persian Gulf nations, including Saudi Arabia, before she leaves on a trip to the Middle East on Monday.

Washington Post




Note: the Saudi Government did NOT criticize the Iranian plan to aquire 250 Su-30
Iran buying 250 SU 30's has no bases in reality I'm afraid.....
Thats why they did'ent question it.

SA and the West enjoy mutual interests. Currently that means to curb Iranian regional ambitions. Iran very much wish to assert itself against SA and the smaller Gulf states. This they cannot do, as long as the West has a game changing presence in the Gulf. That means the Gulf states may be tied up with the west, but enjoy an independence that shines compared with taking dictates from Teheran, which btw is supplied by Russia and China - making it even more unlikely that SA will turn significantly towards Russia/China for arms.

0.02€
Have to question your analysis of the Iranian/Saudi relationship. You seem to be transferring US interests to Saudi Arabia.
It is less a question of Iran trying to assert itself against Saudi Arabia and more Iran trying to regain it old role as a major player in the gulf region.
As for Saudi Arabia bending to Iranian dicates, dont be rediculous.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Have to question your analysis of the Iranian/Saudi relationship. You seem to be transferring US interests to Saudi Arabia.
It is less a question of Iran trying to assert itself against Saudi Arabia and more Iran trying to regain it old role as a major player in the gulf region.
Which one is it? Asserting itself must be the same as regaining the old role or huh?

As for Saudi Arabia bending to Iranian dicates, dont be rediculous.
They aren't, are they? Why? Is it because the power of the regional power is being offset by a global power - leaving the regional power frustrated? "Bending to dictate" could be a considered a hard terminology. How about "dominated". ;)
 
Last edited:

merocaine

New Member
Which one is it? Asserting itself must be the same as regaining the old role or huh?
Wrong, it is one thing threating your neighbours and issueing dicates, it is another to play the kind of role a state the size of Iran should, ie it should be a leading Gulf state.
Not kept in a box by it neighbours with the help of an outside power, because who knows it just may start looking for a game changer.

They aren't are they? Why?
Eh? sorry i might have missed the part where the Iranian Ambassador brow beats the Saudi's into submission. Or even the part where the Iranians tried to.

back from 1998

http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/world98/saudiran.htm

from 2002

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DH16Ak01.html

from 2005

http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/newsletter2005/saudi-relations-interest-06-28.html

from 2007

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/070416/2007041606.html


Sure the US goverment has problems with the Iranians but it does not follow the the Saudi's have those same problems.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
About 27 percent of US Aid to Israel is allowed to be spend on acquistions from local defence industries.
Was that introduced when the civilian aid was phased out in favour of more military aid? As I recall, Israel in effect used US civilian aid as military aid spent within Israel. It replaced internal government civilian spending, allowing Israeli money to be spent on the military.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Wrong, it is one thing threating your neighbours and issueing dicates, it is another to play the kind of role a state the size of Iran should, ie it should be a leading Gulf state.
Not kept in a box by it neighbours with the help of an outside power, because who knows it just may start looking for a game changer.
There is a difference letting Iran be a leading state in the Gulf and letting it dominate. And the latter is out of the question due to the outside presence. iran could not assert itself. Read the third article you posted.

I would call the police if there is a burglar breaking and entering downstairs, i.e. call the global power. (I know, bad analogy).

Eh? sorry i might have missed the part where the Iranian Ambassador brow beats the Saudi's into submission. Or even the part where the Iranians tried to.
Once more: Iran doesn't browbeat SA. You're putting words in my mouth.

A security pact is agreed upon against a common enemy seeking to topple the govt of both countries. Graduation of importance in context of what else is going on in the region wrt Iran: 1) of little importance; 2) relatively important; 3) quite important; 4) very important; 5) extremely important.

How would you grade it: 1-5. Curious.

Btw, I sense that the writer of the 2002 piece has written it with one eye on the 1998 piece. :D

This one agrees with my analysis until after the point, describing how the US gives the GCC room for maneuver. Then, at the end it goes against the background it sets up, blames the US, and asks them to go home. :D

Your take? I see only happy go lucky stuff in it...

Sure the US goverment has problems with the Iranians but it does not follow the the Saudi's have those same problems.
Of course not - and the other way round. But they're certainly intertwined. And Persian ambitions of regional hegemony are real and ancient. It would be wrong to say that the US caused this. It was just how things developed and they're now part of it.
 
Was that introduced when the civilian aid was phased out in favour of more military aid? As I recall, Israel in effect used US civilian aid as military aid spent within Israel. It replaced internal government civilian spending, allowing Israeli money to be spent on the military.
According to this CRS report the Israelis have been allowed to do this since the 1980s.

Aid. Israel has been the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid since 1976. In 1998, Israeli, congressional, and Administration officials agreed to reduce U.S. $1.2 billion in Economic Support Funds (ESF) to zero over ten years, while increasing Foreign Military Financing (FMF) from $1.8 billion to $2.4 billion. The process began in FY1999, with P.L. 105-277, October 21, 1998. Separately from the scheduled ESF cuts, Israeli has received an extra $1.2 billion to fund implementation of the Wye agreement (part of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process) in FY2000, $200 million in anti-terror assistance in FY2002, and $1 billion in FMF in the supplemental appropriations bill for FY2003. P.L. 109-102, November 14, 2005, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, 2006, provided $240 million in ESF, $2.28 billion in FMF, and $40 million for the settlement of migrants to Israel. H.R. 5533, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, FY2007, passed in the House on June 9, 2006, appropriates $120 million in ESF, $40 million for migration and refugee
assistance, and $2.34 billion in FMF (of which $610 million may be spent for defense acquisitions in Israel), for Israel. The Senate has not yet passed a bill. On July 11, 2005, Israeli press reported that Israel was requesting about $2.25 billion in special aid in a mix of grants and loan guarantees over four years, with onethird to be used to relocate military bases to Israel in the disengagement from Gaza and the rest to develop the Negev and Galilee regions and for other purposes, but none to help compensate settlers or for other civilian aspects of the disengagement. Preliminary discussions were held but no formal request made and, in light of the costs of Hurricane Katrina, Olmert postponed it. On November 15, an Israeli news source reported that talks had resumed on a $1.2 billion aid package for the Negev and Galilee and that $800 million for military aspects of disengagement had been
deleted after a negative U.S. response. In January 2006, Shimon Peres reportedly discussed the aid package with Secretary Rice. However, neither the FY2005 supplemental nor the FY2006 foreign operations bills appropriated the aid. On July 14, 2006, during Israel’s war against Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Pentagon notified Congress that it planned to sell up to $210 million in jet fuel to Israel. On July 22, it was reported that the Administration is expediting the delivery of precision-guided bombs that had been ordered by Israel in 2005.

Congress has legislated other special provisions regarding aid to Israel. Since the 1980s, ESF and FMF have been provided as all grant cash transfers, not designated for particular projects, and have been transferred as a lump sum in the first month of the fiscal year, instead of in periodic increments. Israel is allowed to spend about one-quarter of the military aid for the procurement in Israel of defense articles and services, including research and development, rather than in the United States.
Finally, to help Israel out of its economic slump, P.L. 108-11, April 16, 2003,
provided $9 billion in loan guarantees over three years, use of which has since been extended to 2008. As of July 2005, $4.9 billion of the guarantees remained unused.


CRS Report
 

swerve

Super Moderator
According to this CRS report the Israelis have been allowed to do this since the 1980s.
Congress has legislated other special provisions regarding aid to Israel. Since the 1980s, ESF and FMF have been provided as all grant cash transfers, not designated for particular projects, and have been transferred as a lump sum in the first month of the fiscal year, instead of in periodic increments. Israel is allowed to spend about one-quarter of the military aid for the procurement in Israel of defense articles and services, including research and development, rather than in the United States.
Ah no. The two statements (1, concerning ESF & FMF since the 1980s, & 2, how Israel is allowed to spend the money) aren't necessarily linked. It could mean what you suggest, but it doesn't actually say it.

That's the sort of conjunction which makes me think "sloppy sub-editing".
 

SaudiArabian

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #60
What kind of trouble? Sunni/Shiite?
thats just one part which is ideological but also very dangerous

the real trouble are acts of war commited by Iran against Saudi Arabia and the other GCC's since the '79 revolution untill today .. better not to go off-topic here to that different issue :)
 
Top