Come to me s/he who would defend of the American retreat before the advance of Iran. Let me examine your teeth. Your president Barack Obama is presiding over the collapse of American foreign policy in the Persian Gulf and throughout the Middle East. At first I was dismayed because of lingering attachment to the land of my birth. But after awhile one grows detached from abject failure. Who can defend Barack Obama's policy toward Iran? Come out and bare your neck. The IAEA is supposed to deliver a new report soon on Iranian compliance with the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. It is supposed to be scathing against Iran. Iran is fighting a proxy war with Saudi Arabia in Yemen. Iranian Revolutionary Guards are helping the Alawites of Syria put down the Sunni revolution. Iran and Turkey view each other with armed hostility. In the meantime the Master of Disaster fiddles while Rome burns. Leftists, send out your champion to do battle. Defend Barack's foreign policy toward Iran.
Welcome frodly. Let's dance. frodly says: In this format, would you continue your habit of twitter style posting, or would you post more substantially were you to be involved? Next question, what does "An Iran policy" mean? The idea that we don't have an Iran policy, is entirely absurd. It is not worth debating. However, if your position is that we have an inadequate Iran policy, I totally agree. However, we could debate what our Iran policy SHOULD be!!
frodly, The subject of this thread reaches a number of different issues. However, the most important issue is imo is the question of nuclear proliferation. Iran is currently in violation of its disclosure obligations under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. And Iran is working feverishly toward acquisition of nuclear weapons. Barack Obama's former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said America has no policy to thwart Iran's drive to acquire nuclear weapons. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/world/middleeast/18iran.html?pagewanted=all What say you? Do you agree with Robert Gates and me?
I said I didn't want to debate this topic, but since you started it anyways, I will defend it in twitter style here!! The US has a clear Iran policy. Use it's proxies and allies in the region to oppose Iran, and isolate them from the rest of the region and the world. This is most significantly done through Israel and our allies in the Gulf States. We use the Saudis as a check on Iranian power, after we removed the previous check on Iranian power, in Saddam(another disastrous and unintended consequence of that war)!! The Saudi offensive is mostly achieved with money, and support of non-governmental proxies, but it is there for anyone to see. However, the most significant clash in the series of clashes, is the recent Saudi intervention in Bahrain. Saudi Arabian intervention, with obvious American support, was a direct slap in the face of Iran. Bahrain is Iran's neighbor as well as their coreligionist!! Sunni Saudi Arabia, invaded Bahrain to put down a primarily Shiite uprising in Bahrain!!! As I said, this was a clear slap in the face of Iran. On top of that, the recent uprisings in Arab countries has opened up a few opportunities for Iranian gains, specifically in Egypt where Mubarak's former hardline, has turned into a very slightly less hardline approach taken by the current military establishment. However, far more significantly as far as Iran's interests go, is the recent turmoil in Syria. Syria is Iran's one and only ally in the region. With the recent pressures on Bashar al-Assad's government, Iran is in serious jeopardy of losing it's only ally in the region, and really in the world. Certainly other countries work with them, but Syria is at the moment, very closely allied with Iran. If Assad's government falls, or at least is forced to grant concessions to maintain power, the Shiite minority may have a hard time convincing the average Syrian to maintain it's current relationship with Iran. It is why we currently definitely have CIA agents in Syria working towards those ends. That is how diplomacy works. Not everything requires a big stick, and something to hit. Some things are far more complex and nuanced. We tried the threatening them under Bush, and look where that got us. We have only 2 option, continue the path we are on, or intervene militarily or support intervention by one of our regional allies. PS. Those aren't the only 2 options really, there are many more. Those are simply the only 2 options we as a country will actually consider. Leaving other countries alone, and allowing them to conduct their affairs as they see fit is certainly not an option. Nor is ending the assumption that we own the world. So really those are the only 2 options based on the assumption that we own the world and are justified in intervening in the affairs of any country we like!!
You've made a mistake imo. I would like to see you prove your assertion that America supported Saudi intervention. It is my understanding that America urged the Saudis not to intervene. I will see if I can find some authority on that point while you are busying trying to prove that the KSA had obvious American support for the Saudi intervention in Bahrain. Go get em tiger. After America cut the ground out from under Egypt's Mubarek the US lost its credibility with the Saudis and other Gulf Arabs in my opinion. Saudi Arabia is simply pursuing its own interests without regard to an unreliable figure such as Obama.
"On Saturday, March 12, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Bahrain, where he called for real reforms to the country’s political system and criticized “baby steps,” which he said would be insufficient to defuse the crisis. The Saudis were called in within a few hours of Gates’s departure, however, showing their disdain for his efforts to reach a negotiated solution. By acting so soon after Gates’s visit, Saudi Arabia has made the United States look at best irrelevant to events in Bahrain, and from the Shiite opposition’s point of view, even complicit in the Saudi military intervention..." http://warincontext.org/2011/03/14/...n-in-bahrain-is-a-slap-in-the-face-of-the-us/
The fact that Saudi Arabia has decided to go it alone means that America has lost influence with the KSA. The loss of influence translates into a loss of power. There is a correlation between political power and economic well being. See how this works.
"...The Pentagon said Gates received no notification during his visit of any planned intervention by the Saudis. The United States has found itself in the awkward position of having to balance seemingly contradictory positions as protests have roiled autocratic North African and Middle Eastern countries...." http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/15/world/la-fg-bahrain-troops-20110315 Mein Gutt, the effin Saudis didn't even let the Americanskis know they were going to intervene in Bahrain. How's that for coordination?
Barack Obama's lack of a policy toward the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran means that nuclear proliferation is spreading. Don't believe me? What about the British. The left wing rag called the Guardian agrees with me in its reportage: Riyadh will build nuclear weapons if Iran gets them, Saudi prince warns Prospect of a nuclear conflict in the Middle East is raised by senior diplomat and member of the Saudi ruling family http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/29/saudi-build-nuclear-weapons-iran Do you see how this works? Iran gets the bomb. Then those powers who feel threatened feel like they have to get the bomb too. And so on and so on and so on.
The problem comes down to the fact that no one believes America will shield them from Iran. Why? Obama is unreliable. He can't be trusted. Don't believe me? Just ask Hosni Mubarek. War is coming to the Middle East.
frodly, You've a very knowledgeable guy. But the way to deal with smart people like yourself is to pick on a mistake that they make and then hammer it home. Better men and women than myself taught me this technique.
It depends what you want here. I can make an incredibly convincing case, that the Saudi's never act without American approval, but then you will just claim Obama has changed that, though I see no evidence to make me believe that is true. I can similarly show evidence, that shows America's public positions is often directly at odds with their private positions, but then again you could just claim Obama has changed that. Again, I just see no evidence that is the case. We have long used proxies to do harsh things we didn't want to do. We have presented a facade, of caring about freedom and democracy, and if we came out directly in support of the Saudi intervention that facade would have collapsed in the minds of the few people in the world who still believe that sort of nonsense(mostly Americans only, really). The reality is, our public declarations are often directly at odds with a our private dealings. Wikileaks showed this, so did many other examples. Most specifically, when we invaded Iraq supposedly in order to spread freedom and democracy, all while our government supported autocracy and tyranny throughout the region. Notably in Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, etc. The thing is, as I already said, we can't just openly support this sort of action. We need to publicly support democracy, while privately support what our establishment considers America's best interests. The 2 often clash. That is when we use proxies and covert actions to achieve our ends, while publicly stating a goal in direct opposition to our actual goal. As I said, this happens all the time. Pulling support for Mubarek was the only legitimate option the military establishment and the US had for maintaining the status quo in that country. What occurred was not a revolution, but a coup. The military replaced the leader, and are now working very hard in order to maintain the status quo. That certainly doesn't bother Saudi Arabia, why would it!! Had Mubarek not been replaced by the military establishment, the revolution would have gotten larger, and the only options would have been to massacre the protestors, or to see the protests expand, and harm the entire establishment!! The way they played this, meant the establishment was defended, while really losing only a few people in key leadership roles. Again, I could show very convincing evidence that this sort of thing would never happen. But your bias against Obama means you will not listen to me. You will simply say they have changed their mind because Obama is so terrible, which doesn't actually make sense. If they actually do not trust Obama, they are smart enough to know he will only be in office so long, and undermining their relationship with us would be a terrible idea for them. The Saudi's have lots of money, and influence in the region, but almost no military power. We act as their military, upsetting us would be a disaster for them. It would leave them open to foreign threats, most specifically from Iran.
This is the point of view of most in the Middle East!! American backed dictators and autocrats oppressing their own, and other people. Of course the US was complicit, they just can't publicly say "Ya, we oppose democracy there, and support tyranny because that is in our best interests." A supposed democrat like Obama, most certainly cannot make that claim!! So publicly we maintain the facade, while privately we support a very different policy!!
My animosity to Obama and the American left is clear, but life has taught me never to lie to myself. Lying to one's self is a recipe for disaster. There are places in the world where Obama has acted wisely, but the Middle East is not one of those places. When US Secty. of Defense Robert Gates visited Bahrain in February he proposed that the Royal Family begin measured incremental steps toward reform. Hours after he left Manama, Saudi and Emirati troops took to the streets of the city quelling the protests. I just don't see the coordination of policy between the KSA and the USA. Gates' proposals were inconsistent with Saudi actions. I don't think we can discount the degree to which the Saudis were flabberghasted by American treatment of Hosni Mubarak. Joe Biden said he was not a dictator, Hillary Clinton said something incomprehensible, and Obama said Mubarak had to go. Those are mixed signals. The Saudis urged Obama to support Mubarak up until the very end. I think that Prince Turki al-Faisal's recent visit to Washington is illustrative: Former Middle East allies snub Washington as its influence dwindles Paul McGeough September 19, 2011 WASHINGTON: The limits of American power, an in-vogue line of analysis for much of the past decade, will be starkly revealed in the coming days, as a Palestinian quest for recognition as a state at the United Nations reveals Washington's dwindling influence in the Middle East. Traditional allies who receive US aid worth billions of dollars - Israel and the Palestinian National Authority - now openly reject American overtures. And allies that in the past might have acted as Washington's trusted go-betweens in a crisis such as this -Egypt and Turkey - have become the most enthusiastic backers of the Palestinians. Despite all its efforts to be seen to be on the right side of history amid uprisings and revolts across the Arab world, the White House has warned that it will use its veto power to block the Palestinians in the UN Security Council, provoking dire warnings from another long-term ally, Saudi Arabia. Riyadh's messenger was Prince Turki al-Faisal, formerly a Saudi ambassador to the US and before that head of Saudi intelligence. His vehicle was the opinion page of The New York Times. If the US refused to back the Palestinians, the prince wrote, ''it risks losing the little credibility it has in the Arab world … American influence will decline further, Israeli security will be undermined and Iran will be empowered, increasing the chances of another war." Outlining how Saudi Arabia had refused to act as requested by the US during this year's uprising in Bahrain and Riyadh's opposition to the US-backed government in Baghdad, he laid down a blunt Saudi demand that hinted of US impotence: "… the least [Washington] can do is step aside and not hinder Saudi, European and moderate Arab efforts to advance Palestinian rights at the [UN]." http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...as-its-influence-dwindles-20110918-1kfyp.html Here are the words of the Saudi Prince themselves, and they support my contention regarding Bahrain: "...Like our recent military support for Bahrain’s monarchy, which America opposed,..." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/opinion/veto-a-state-lose-an-ally.html?_r=1 This should be dispositive of the question of the coordination of Saudi and American policy in the recent Saudi intervention in Bahrain. I will next address, at my convenience, the question of nuclear proliferation by Iran and your president Obama's supine response.
I disagree that it was mixed signals on Mubarek!! The idea that he was not a dictator is an absurd lie, that only a member of government could ever tell. However, their position changed as the facts on the ground changed. They supported Mubarek until it was no longer politically expedient to do so. That is what we always do. As far as Bahrain goes, again the US policy was influenced by facts on the ground. Had the Shiite led uprising in Bahrain succeeded, that would have been seen as a clear victory for Iran, but Saudi Arabia intervened to ensure that didn't happen. You think we were unhappy with that set of events? I can't see how we could be. As I said, we simply need to publicly pretend like we care about democracy, so that the American people don't get too upset.
Yeah, right! Moving on... Obama promised during his last political campaign that he would be able to talk to the Iranians. Once elected to office Obama failed to engage the Iranians in meaningful talks. The Iranians have spurned him with contempt. I believe that it is becoming increasingly difficult to deny that Iran is in the process of acquiring nuclear weapons. Barack Obama agrees with me. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama has no real policy that would prevent the aforementioned acquisition. Existing sanctions are being broken by the Chinese, and will not deter Iran from pursuing nukes. The policy of seeking additional sanctions from the UN Security Council is a dead letter due to Sino-Russian opposition. The Russians and Chinese are the protectors of Iranian theocrats. The threat of pre-emptive military attack by the US is off the table regardless of what the Bamster says. The division in this country is probably too great to allow Obama to strike first. Obama has alienated the Israelis, both govt. and people. That means he has decreasing influence with the Israelis. They see him as incapable in helping them or punishing them concerning the Iranian nuclear weapons program. In the meantime Iran is enriching uranium to nuclear weapons grade as fast as it can, and testing ballistic missiles. Concurrently, Israel is debating a preemptive conventional first strike against Iranian nuclear facilities before it's too late, and testing ballistic missiles. Obama has taken no effective action that could prevent Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons, nor which would prevent an Isaeli conventional attack on Iran. If Israel attacks Iranian nuclear facilities the Iranian program will be set back, but not terminated. Such an attack will trigger Iranian retribution against Israel, but more importantly against American forces in the Middle East and beyond. Perhaps attacks on American soil. That will trigger an American response militarily. But under Obama such a response will undoubtedly be ineffective. There will be further division in America over new military intervention. So Obama has failed in adopting an effective policy against Iran. That sucks for America. Don't you agree?
Iran may implode on its own... They have some serious internal problems and infighting among leadership.
Hoping for a miracle doesn't substitute for lack of a policy concerning Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.
The US hasn't lost influence with the Saudis at all. The consideration is that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the Emirates will not have an Iranian foothold on the Arabian Peninsula. This goes way back and the following should give you an accurate picture: http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/214492-irans-bahraini-ambitions.html
Do you think that Russia and the Chinese want a regional war in the area? The Israelis have made life difficult in the ME for the West and the US since 1948..... that's nothing new...
No. The Russians and Chinese understand that Iran's policy and nuclear ambitions are not directed against them.
Do you have any idea how much business and joint venture projects the Russians and Chinese have with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait?
