3 ms·

The Kenneth Pollack article really makes Saudi Arabia look bad. The Saudi Arabian regime is actually more autocratic and less democratic than Iran.

kobayashi 11y ago
Well, I agree that Saudi Arabia's regime is more autocratic and less democratic than Iran, given that SA is one of the world's last absolute monarchies. However, I think Pollack accurately depicts SA as largely reactionary to Iran's external meddling, which is highly disruptive to the region and the world. Pollack didn't really touch upon the issue of Iran as a revolutionary power, but I think it's worth noting. The Islamic Republic of Iran continues to act as a movement, rather than a status-quo power, as it continuously acts to export its revolution and remake itself as the dominant hegemon in the region and beyond.
- bhouston 11y ago
  You seem to have a belief that Iran is worse that SA for some somewhat undefined reason. I can not aruge with that.
  - kobayashi 11y ago
    To briefly summarize why I think the Iranian regime is worse than the Saudi regime - Iran is a more destabilizing force. It's the world's largest state-sponsor of terrorism and it seeks to remake itself as the Middle East's superpower by whatever means necessary. It calls for, and takes actions towards the destruction of a UN member state. In short - SA is a despicable regime that mostly keeps it's human rights abuses confined to its borders, while Iran conducts its despotic behaviour both internally and externally. PS: the fact that Iran knows how to play the Western media, speaking in terms that resonate with Western audiences, is very troubling.
    - timeu 11y ago
      seriously ? Are we talking about same SA that sponsors radical islamists and islamic schools all around the world and delivers weapons and money to radical islamists in Syria which fuels the civil war ? The same SA that hangs a shiite cleric as an atempt to sabotage the atom deal ? Sorry but SA is the worst regime in the world and if it would vanish tomorrow, the world would be probably a better place.
      - kobayashi 11y ago
        The Saudi regime and it's population are two different groups of people. Most of the sponsoring of violent Islamists abroad is done by the Wahhabi establishment, not the regime. Though, the regime does lay the groundwork for much of the Wahhabi proselytizing by its sponsoring of madrassas abroad. So, the Saudi Regime does a lot of absolutely abhorrent shit, and so do it's people. But without the regime we'd probably be in a worse-off place. >delivers weapons and money to radical islamists in Syria which fuels the civil war The civil war is being fuelled by Iran's support for the Assad regime, both directly and by it's proxy, Hezbollah. The draw for radicals to fight in Syria is the Assad regime. >SA that hangs a shiite cleric as an atempt to sabotage the atom deal I definitely wouldn't say that the execution of Nimr was an attempt to sabotage the nuclear deal. There's really no evidence of that, and it's illogical because there's almost no way it could do that. Read the Pollack article above to understand the likely reason as to why SA killed him. I can't believe I'm hear almost defending Saudi Arabia. I just think they're less despicable than Iran, but both are absolutely abhorrent. Both regimes push their own version of violent Islamism and are a pox on the world.
        timeu 11y ago
        >So, the Saudi Regime does a lot of absolutely abhorrent shit, and so do it's people. But without the regime we'd probably be in a worse-off place. I think the SA regime is the single biggest reason why the population is still stuck in the middle ages (but what do you expect of a regime that treats woman like second class citizen). The money from oil might hide this fact a bit but SA has virtually no cultural or civilizing accomplishments >The civil war is being fuelled by Iran's support for the Assad regime, both directly and by it's proxy, Hezbollah. Iran and Russia have supported Assad way before the civil war started. 6 years ago I was in Damascus and Deir ez-Zor and there was no signs of a civil war. Don't get me wrong, the Assad regime is restrictive and brutal but if those radical jihadists supported by SA, Katar and Turkey win, it will be much much worse. Just take the groups hat were invited to the "opposition talks" in Riad (Jaysh al-Islam, etc). If you watch the videos on liveleak you see all those groups running around with TOWs and modern weapons. > definitely wouldn't say that the execution of Nimr was an attempt to sabotage the nuclear deal. What else was it ? Killing a important shiite cleric is nothing but fueling the secterian conflict and the reaction was the descruction of the SA embassy in Teheran. Luckily the Iranian government (especially the moderate ones like Rohani,Zarif) decided not to escalate further. But this was a clear attempt to provocate a stupid reaction from the iranian side. Nimr was no threat to SA and if you really think that a cleric is thread to a regime like SA, then it's probably better if this regime vanishes rather earlier than later. > I just think they're less despicable than Iran If you really think that, then you don't know much about Iran or its history. Apart from the fact that Iran is one of the oldest cultures in the world, the population and especially woman are highly educated. In SA until recently woman couldn't even drive or vote or go out without a male accompanying them. 2009 millions of young iranians went to the streets to protest against voter fraud and before the revolution, Iran was a quite free and progressive. So even tough the regimes might be both religious fanatics, Iran is still light years ahead of SA in terms of civil society and culture.

kobayashi 11y ago

Well, I agree that Saudi Arabia's regime is more autocratic and less democratic than Iran, given that SA is one of the world's last absolute monarchies. However, I think Pollack accurately depicts SA as largely reactionary to Iran's external meddling, which is highly disruptive to the region and the world. Pollack didn't really touch upon the issue of Iran as a revolutionary power, but I think it's worth noting. The Islamic Republic of Iran continues to act as a movement, rather than a status-quo power, as it continuously acts to export its revolution and remake itself as the dominant hegemon in the region and beyond.

bhouston 11y ago
You seem to have a belief that Iran is worse that SA for some somewhat undefined reason. I can not aruge with that.
- kobayashi 11y ago
  To briefly summarize why I think the Iranian regime is worse than the Saudi regime - Iran is a more destabilizing force. It's the world's largest state-sponsor of terrorism and it seeks to remake itself as the Middle East's superpower by whatever means necessary. It calls for, and takes actions towards the destruction of a UN member state. In short - SA is a despicable regime that mostly keeps it's human rights abuses confined to its borders, while Iran conducts its despotic behaviour both internally and externally. PS: the fact that Iran knows how to play the Western media, speaking in terms that resonate with Western audiences, is very troubling.
  - timeu 11y ago
    seriously ? Are we talking about same SA that sponsors radical islamists and islamic schools all around the world and delivers weapons and money to radical islamists in Syria which fuels the civil war ? The same SA that hangs a shiite cleric as an atempt to sabotage the atom deal ? Sorry but SA is the worst regime in the world and if it would vanish tomorrow, the world would be probably a better place.
    - kobayashi 11y ago
      The Saudi regime and it's population are two different groups of people. Most of the sponsoring of violent Islamists abroad is done by the Wahhabi establishment, not the regime. Though, the regime does lay the groundwork for much of the Wahhabi proselytizing by its sponsoring of madrassas abroad. So, the Saudi Regime does a lot of absolutely abhorrent shit, and so do it's people. But without the regime we'd probably be in a worse-off place. >delivers weapons and money to radical islamists in Syria which fuels the civil war The civil war is being fuelled by Iran's support for the Assad regime, both directly and by it's proxy, Hezbollah. The draw for radicals to fight in Syria is the Assad regime. >SA that hangs a shiite cleric as an atempt to sabotage the atom deal I definitely wouldn't say that the execution of Nimr was an attempt to sabotage the nuclear deal. There's really no evidence of that, and it's illogical because there's almost no way it could do that. Read the Pollack article above to understand the likely reason as to why SA killed him. I can't believe I'm hear almost defending Saudi Arabia. I just think they're less despicable than Iran, but both are absolutely abhorrent. Both regimes push their own version of violent Islamism and are a pox on the world.
      - timeu 11y ago
        >So, the Saudi Regime does a lot of absolutely abhorrent shit, and so do it's people. But without the regime we'd probably be in a worse-off place. I think the SA regime is the single biggest reason why the population is still stuck in the middle ages (but what do you expect of a regime that treats woman like second class citizen). The money from oil might hide this fact a bit but SA has virtually no cultural or civilizing accomplishments >The civil war is being fuelled by Iran's support for the Assad regime, both directly and by it's proxy, Hezbollah. Iran and Russia have supported Assad way before the civil war started. 6 years ago I was in Damascus and Deir ez-Zor and there was no signs of a civil war. Don't get me wrong, the Assad regime is restrictive and brutal but if those radical jihadists supported by SA, Katar and Turkey win, it will be much much worse. Just take the groups hat were invited to the "opposition talks" in Riad (Jaysh al-Islam, etc). If you watch the videos on liveleak you see all those groups running around with TOWs and modern weapons. > definitely wouldn't say that the execution of Nimr was an attempt to sabotage the nuclear deal. What else was it ? Killing a important shiite cleric is nothing but fueling the secterian conflict and the reaction was the descruction of the SA embassy in Teheran. Luckily the Iranian government (especially the moderate ones like Rohani,Zarif) decided not to escalate further. But this was a clear attempt to provocate a stupid reaction from the iranian side. Nimr was no threat to SA and if you really think that a cleric is thread to a regime like SA, then it's probably better if this regime vanishes rather earlier than later. > I just think they're less despicable than Iran If you really think that, then you don't know much about Iran or its history. Apart from the fact that Iran is one of the oldest cultures in the world, the population and especially woman are highly educated. In SA until recently woman couldn't even drive or vote or go out without a male accompanying them. 2009 millions of young iranians went to the streets to protest against voter fraud and before the revolution, Iran was a quite free and progressive. So even tough the regimes might be both religious fanatics, Iran is still light years ahead of SA in terms of civil society and culture.