7 ms·

Perhaps we should be demanding heads on pikes. This has very real implications for Hillary Clinton's election chances as well. The Clintons have been supporters

Perhaps we should be demanding heads on pikes. This has very real implications for Hillary Clinton's election chances as well. The Clintons have been supporters of the Saudis for some time now and have accepted Saudi government money through the Clinton Foundation. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=%2410%2C000%2C001+to+%2425%2C000%2C000 https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=%241... http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-... There is no reason the U.S. should be allies with the House of Saud. We have almost no aligned interests and very different views on human rights and Wahhabism. My hope is that the report is published.

s_q_b 10y ago
Swinging the election toward a hawkish demagogue with no knowledge of foreign policy does not seem like a desirable outcome for the United States either. It's worth noting that for now the Saudis still retain a bit of leverage. They could potentially start a kamikaze run on the dollar. They are our largest regional ally, and in very close proximity to Israel. We have very little knowledge of their nuclear program. Finally, they're a vital partner in the ongoing war with Russia and its proxies (Iran et al.) Also, I cannot begin to fathom what would happen if a "Christian" nation invaded the keeper of Mecca and Medina... I never thought I'd say this, but perhaps some secrets are better left untold.
- someguydave 10y ago
  >hey could potentially start a kamikaze run on the dollar. I'm not so sure. Assuming they had several hundred billion dollars worth of Treasuries, and further assuming that they dumped them all on the market, the demand for USG debt is sufficiently large that I suspect it would be purchased in an orderly fashion without even causing much uptick in interest rates.
  - richmarr 10y ago
    > ... I suspect it would be purchased in an orderly fashion "Orderly fashion" and trading (algorithmic or otherwise) are oil and water, surely.
  - s_q_b 10y ago
    Assuming a rational market, sure. But market panics aren't governed by the normal rules of supply and demand. They're a behavioral phenomenon caused by the non-rational human agents in the system panicking.
- travmatt 10y ago
  "It's worth noting that for now the Saudis still retain a bit of leverage. They could potentially start a kamikaze run on the dollar. " Do you have an idea of whether their increased production has affected the fracking production in the US? Would they, in the long-term, have success in making the US more dependent again? "They are our largest regional ally, and in very close proximity to Israel... Finally, they're a vital partner in the ongoing war with Russia and its proxies (Iran et al.)" As I understand it, the Saudi Royal family derives part of its legitimacy through the backing of the religious leaders of their country, and the Sunni world at large - but many of the Saudi family itself are actually more progressive than the conservative country. Is there any chance that they want to or could push back against the Wahhabist ideology that seems to spout from the gulf peninsula? " We have very little knowledge of their nuclear program" How is that possible? It'd seem as though their supplies of nuclear weapons are precisely the types that we want to be aware of at all times? "Also, I cannot begin to fathom what would happen if a "Christian" nation invaded the keeper of Mecca and Medina... I never thought I'd say this, but perhaps some secrets are better left untold." When the cube was seized in 1979 and the Muslim world thought the US was to blame, we got the glimpses of what reactions could be. We'd truly see the Middle East in flames.
  - s_q_b 10y ago
    1. Do you have an idea of whether their increased production has affected the fracking production in the US? Would they, in the long-term, have success in making the US more dependent again? The theory that a lot of people had was that the Saudis are attempting to push down oil prices. My family owns some property on which they're conducting hydraulic fracturing (not my call, I campaigned to have the practice banned in the state.) There's still faith that oil prices will rise again, and investment, while reduced, is continuing. To the extend that the Saudis lower production, US facilities are already built now, and most of the mothballed facilities can come back online in a year or so. 2. As I understand it, the Saudi Royal family derives part of its legitimacy through the backing of the religious leaders of their country, and the Sunni world at large - but many of the Saudi family itself are actually more progressive than the conservative country. Is there any chance that they want to or could push back against the Wahhabist ideology that seems to spout from the gulf peninsula? In brief, yes, and the liberalizing push from the royal family is growing stronger with time. Saudi Arabia has gone through great pains to construct a world-class university. Built in an isolated area to avoid the interference with the religious police, KAUST has an endowment of ~$20 Billion, which puts it monetarily on par with each of H/Y/P and is twice the combined endowment of Oxford and Cambridge. KAUST has partnerships with prominent United States universities, including several in the Ivy League, and is headed by the former University President of Caltech. Most instruction is in English, men and women study side-by-side, and freedom of discussion is encouraged. There are also plans to construct a series of model cities along the coastline, following much a similar model. Most recently, Saudi Arabia underwent a fairly silent transition of power to Prince Salman. Prince Salman is a modernizer, who very much understands that Saudi Arabia needs to invest its oil revenues into creating an economy that is not dependent on oil exports. He has the blessing of the King and the Allegiance Council, has consolidated power through as the official head of the defense, economic, and oil ministries. A few months ago, King Salman issued a series of liberalizing decrees widely seen to be the result of Prince Salman's influence. [0] So there is hope for the Kingdom yet. 3. " We have very little knowledge of their nuclear program" How is that possible? It'd seem as though their supplies of nuclear weapons are precisely the types that we want to be aware of at all times? We know they have a nascent capability being developed south of Riyyhad. The reason we have little insight is that American HUMINT in Saudi Arabia is woefully weak. We do not know whether they have already have a weapon, whether they've miniaturized it, or if they don't, what the breakout time for them to develop one is. When the cube was seized in 1979 and the Muslim world thought the US was to blame, we got the glimpses of what reactions could be. We'd truly see the Middle East in flames. Agreed, and unfortunately the only way to douse those flames would be a mobilization effort the Western world can scarcely afford. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-government-shake-up.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/world/middleeast/saudi-ara...
- pjc50 10y ago
  Obviously invading KSA would be a total disaster. Even embargoing the place could have chaotic results beyond the massive oil price spike. Not to mention the strategic complications of the US relying on bases there. I find it interesting that you've gone straight for "war with Russia" without bothering with "cold". I really don't like this second cold war because at least the first one was obvious to everyone and publicly discussed. The new one is conducted just like the old one through proxy countries which the players are prepared to burn down to deny them to the enemy, but if the chaos spreads to Turkey then that will be the end of the EU as everyone rolls out the barbed wire and machine guns to stop the tens of millions of potential refugees.
- moomin 10y ago
  > a hawkish demagogue with no knowledge of foreign policy and a high opinion of Putin enlarged on that for you :)
- SixSigma 10y ago
  > Swinging the election toward a hawkish demagogue with no knowledge of foreign policy At this point that sounds like either of them.
  - travmatt 10y ago
    Hillary is a lot of things, but inexperienced in foreign policy's a something she's not.
    - SixSigma 10y ago
      Gaining experience is another phrase for making mistakes.
      - kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
        Trump has a ton of experience defaulting on business loans. I can't see a better reason for him to take control and use his magic touch to fix everything.
    - wavefunction 10y ago
      Of course one must note that experience in foreign policy may not be as important as the outcomes achieved during that experience.
      - travmatt 10y ago
        The Iranian nuclear deal?
        wavefunction 10y ago
        That was during Secretary John Kerry's tenure. Hillary has threatened war to enforce the deal, which is something...[0] [0]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/9/hillary-clinton-threatens-war-enforce-iran-deal/?page=all http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/9/hillary-clint...
knodi123 10y ago
> There is no reason the U.S. should be allies with the House of Saud. We have almost no aligned interests and very different views on human rights and Wahhabism. Well, in isolation, sure. But in the broader geopolitical sense, it really does make sense to have at least one close ally in that region.
- maze-le 10y ago
  > But in the broader geopolitical sense, it really does make sense to have at least one close ally in that region. What about Israel, Turkey, Egypt?
  - cmurf 10y ago
    Really? You think their moral positions are significantly better than Saudi Arabia? And they have essentially zero to offer economically? Their governments aren't any more sane or stable, in the enduring sense, than Saudi Arabia.
    - maze-le 10y ago
      This was not a moral judgement, I simply questioned the claim, that Saudi Arabia is the only influential US-ally in the middle east.
      - knodi123 10y ago
        you're right, I was inaccurate about that. But saudi is certainly a valuable ally, right?
      - toyg 10y ago
        Influentially speaking, they are. Israel has zero influence on neighbours except for threats of nuclear war. The Egyptian government is currently seen as illegitimate pretty much everywhere. Turkey leverages its geopolitical position towards Europe and Russia, but Erdogan has few friends left and might well end up like Mubarak in the long run. For good or bad, the combo of economic and religious power Saudis can swing is pretty unmatched in the region at the moment -- their only counterweight being, potentially, an Iranian state with smart people at the wheel for more than a few token years.
Shivetya 10y ago
I would prefer that instead of piking more heads we, the US, just bugger off. I have no issue with a strong military, I have a big concern with protecting countries or having bases in countries that have more than sufficient GDP to protect themselves. For the time being availability of oil for all nations through the Gulf states is as simple as keeping a US CV fleet or two in the area. It benefits all nations outside the region and doesn't require propping up repressive regimes to accomplish.
- pjc50 10y ago
  having bases in countries that have more than sufficient GDP to protect themselves As in Germany, the bases aren't there for the US to protect that country but the other way round: to ensure that country remains US-aligned.
  - at-fates-hands 10y ago
    Actually most of these bases are there because when there's trouble in those parts of the world, we need a place to be able to get troops, equipment and supplies into a given theater in a fast, efficient manner. The countries reap the economic benefits for sure, so it's a win/win situation for both countries. Not so much when the US starts cutting back on its military: City officials in Heidelberg expect annual financial losses of up to $25 million, as a result of the closures of U.S. bases in the region. "We estimate that a total of about 1,000 civilian jobs will be lost, when the nearly 8,000 service members pull out," said Diana Scharl, a spokesperson for the city of Heidelberg. http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/30/12482964-bye-bye-gi-deep-impact-for-many-germans-as-us-troops-downsize?lite http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/30/12482964-bye-b... I'd love for us to pull back from a lot of these areas, but let's face it, when one country invades another, they don't call France, Ireland, or Norway to help them do they? They expect the US to be the world's defender from the bad guys.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > I'd love for us to pull back from a lot of these areas, but let's face it, when one country invades another, they don't call France, Ireland, or Norway to help them do they? 1. This makes it sound like you are talking about the invading country calling for help. Which is probably not what you intend. 2. In point of fact, if its in Africa, the boots on the ground for any call for help (whether the problem which provoked it is internal fighting or international conflict) are more likely to be French than American.
hackuser 10y ago
> There is no reason the U.S. should be allies with the House of Saud. There is a very good reason: 1) The US needs a stable oil supply 2) The US needs global stability, for which the world needs a stable oil supply. 3) A stable oil supply requires a stable Persian Gulf region. 4) Leverage and influence with the most powerful nation in the Persian Gulf (with the possible exception of Iran, an enemy of the U.S.), is very valuable and perhaps necessary to stability in the Persian Gulf. That arrangement worked for decades, and look what's happening now that it fell apart. Recently things have changed a little: The US has become less dependent on Persian Gulf oil due to domestic supplies; there is/was a global glut of oil, making the world less dependent on the Gulf; US-Iran relations improved somewhat; and Saudi religious fundamentalism has gone from being their internal problem to a global problem. Also, US policy changed: The US became a cause of instability in the Persian Gulf with the invasion of Iraq and the reckless disregard for the need to find a stable, political outcome for that country (no planning for occupation, etc.). Also, the Arab Spring created a dilemma: Support democracy or support short/medium-term stability? At times the US chose democracy, further undermining current stability (democracies would of course be more stable in the long run, but getting from here to there involves a period of instability).
- int_19h 10y ago
  And why is Iran an enemy of US?
  - travmatt 10y ago
    I can't tell if you're genuinely asking, but Iran is widely considered one of the largest sponsors of state-funded terrorism in the world. Lots of self-flagellating Americans like to ask about the US/Saudi Arabia, but Iran's IRGC and esp. Quds Force are famous for their successes in cultivating and logistically supplying terror groups (think Hamas, Hezbollah) - if the US took such an intense and long-term view of the ME I think the world would be different.
    - int_19h 10y ago
      Any such assessment largely depends on your definition of "state-funded terrorism". Saudis, for example, fund a massive network of Salafi religious schools all over the world, that has a very impressive record of radicalizing their students. Said students then end up running organizations like Caucasus Emirate or Daesh, or just blowing up local targets of opportunity (including moderate Muslim clergy that is trying to actively counter Salafi propaganda in their area, thereby preventing or at least limiting further radicalization). But most importantly, I was asking about US. How many terrorist groups in US does Iran fund, and what damage have they done to date?
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
"...We have almost no aligned interests..." So if you buy the story that effectively, T.E. Lawrence installed the House of Saud, then we have the interest of maintaining the Former British Empire. S.A. is also parked on both Mecca and Medina. We also have an interest in an ally, no matter how ... dissonant ... in that spot. "... and very different views on human rights and Wahhabism..." With maximum snark - celebrate the cultural diversity. One of the most interesting features of nation-state-dom is that we can smile and ignore all that. Er, right until Wahabbism runs smack up into our Security Industrial Complex.

s_q_b 10y ago

Swinging the election toward a hawkish demagogue with no knowledge of foreign policy does not seem like a desirable outcome for the United States either. It's worth noting that for now the Saudis still retain a bit of leverage. They could potentially start a kamikaze run on the dollar. They are our largest regional ally, and in very close proximity to Israel. We have very little knowledge of their nuclear program. Finally, they're a vital partner in the ongoing war with Russia and its proxies (Iran et al.) Also, I cannot begin to fathom what would happen if a "Christian" nation invaded the keeper of Mecca and Medina... I never thought I'd say this, but perhaps some secrets are better left untold.

someguydave 10y ago
>hey could potentially start a kamikaze run on the dollar. I'm not so sure. Assuming they had several hundred billion dollars worth of Treasuries, and further assuming that they dumped them all on the market, the demand for USG debt is sufficiently large that I suspect it would be purchased in an orderly fashion without even causing much uptick in interest rates.
- richmarr 10y ago
  > ... I suspect it would be purchased in an orderly fashion "Orderly fashion" and trading (algorithmic or otherwise) are oil and water, surely.
- s_q_b 10y ago
  Assuming a rational market, sure. But market panics aren't governed by the normal rules of supply and demand. They're a behavioral phenomenon caused by the non-rational human agents in the system panicking.
travmatt 10y ago
"It's worth noting that for now the Saudis still retain a bit of leverage. They could potentially start a kamikaze run on the dollar. " Do you have an idea of whether their increased production has affected the fracking production in the US? Would they, in the long-term, have success in making the US more dependent again? "They are our largest regional ally, and in very close proximity to Israel... Finally, they're a vital partner in the ongoing war with Russia and its proxies (Iran et al.)" As I understand it, the Saudi Royal family derives part of its legitimacy through the backing of the religious leaders of their country, and the Sunni world at large - but many of the Saudi family itself are actually more progressive than the conservative country. Is there any chance that they want to or could push back against the Wahhabist ideology that seems to spout from the gulf peninsula? " We have very little knowledge of their nuclear program" How is that possible? It'd seem as though their supplies of nuclear weapons are precisely the types that we want to be aware of at all times? "Also, I cannot begin to fathom what would happen if a "Christian" nation invaded the keeper of Mecca and Medina... I never thought I'd say this, but perhaps some secrets are better left untold." When the cube was seized in 1979 and the Muslim world thought the US was to blame, we got the glimpses of what reactions could be. We'd truly see the Middle East in flames.
- s_q_b 10y ago
  1. Do you have an idea of whether their increased production has affected the fracking production in the US? Would they, in the long-term, have success in making the US more dependent again? The theory that a lot of people had was that the Saudis are attempting to push down oil prices. My family owns some property on which they're conducting hydraulic fracturing (not my call, I campaigned to have the practice banned in the state.) There's still faith that oil prices will rise again, and investment, while reduced, is continuing. To the extend that the Saudis lower production, US facilities are already built now, and most of the mothballed facilities can come back online in a year or so. 2. As I understand it, the Saudi Royal family derives part of its legitimacy through the backing of the religious leaders of their country, and the Sunni world at large - but many of the Saudi family itself are actually more progressive than the conservative country. Is there any chance that they want to or could push back against the Wahhabist ideology that seems to spout from the gulf peninsula? In brief, yes, and the liberalizing push from the royal family is growing stronger with time. Saudi Arabia has gone through great pains to construct a world-class university. Built in an isolated area to avoid the interference with the religious police, KAUST has an endowment of ~$20 Billion, which puts it monetarily on par with each of H/Y/P and is twice the combined endowment of Oxford and Cambridge. KAUST has partnerships with prominent United States universities, including several in the Ivy League, and is headed by the former University President of Caltech. Most instruction is in English, men and women study side-by-side, and freedom of discussion is encouraged. There are also plans to construct a series of model cities along the coastline, following much a similar model. Most recently, Saudi Arabia underwent a fairly silent transition of power to Prince Salman. Prince Salman is a modernizer, who very much understands that Saudi Arabia needs to invest its oil revenues into creating an economy that is not dependent on oil exports. He has the blessing of the King and the Allegiance Council, has consolidated power through as the official head of the defense, economic, and oil ministries. A few months ago, King Salman issued a series of liberalizing decrees widely seen to be the result of Prince Salman's influence. [0] So there is hope for the Kingdom yet. 3. " We have very little knowledge of their nuclear program" How is that possible? It'd seem as though their supplies of nuclear weapons are precisely the types that we want to be aware of at all times? We know they have a nascent capability being developed south of Riyyhad. The reason we have little insight is that American HUMINT in Saudi Arabia is woefully weak. We do not know whether they have already have a weapon, whether they've miniaturized it, or if they don't, what the breakout time for them to develop one is. When the cube was seized in 1979 and the Muslim world thought the US was to blame, we got the glimpses of what reactions could be. We'd truly see the Middle East in flames. Agreed, and unfortunately the only way to douse those flames would be a mobilization effort the Western world can scarcely afford. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-government-shake-up.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/world/middleeast/saudi-ara...
pjc50 10y ago
Obviously invading KSA would be a total disaster. Even embargoing the place could have chaotic results beyond the massive oil price spike. Not to mention the strategic complications of the US relying on bases there. I find it interesting that you've gone straight for "war with Russia" without bothering with "cold". I really don't like this second cold war because at least the first one was obvious to everyone and publicly discussed. The new one is conducted just like the old one through proxy countries which the players are prepared to burn down to deny them to the enemy, but if the chaos spreads to Turkey then that will be the end of the EU as everyone rolls out the barbed wire and machine guns to stop the tens of millions of potential refugees.
moomin 10y ago
> a hawkish demagogue with no knowledge of foreign policy and a high opinion of Putin enlarged on that for you :)
SixSigma 10y ago
> Swinging the election toward a hawkish demagogue with no knowledge of foreign policy At this point that sounds like either of them.
- travmatt 10y ago
  Hillary is a lot of things, but inexperienced in foreign policy's a something she's not.
  - SixSigma 10y ago
    Gaining experience is another phrase for making mistakes.
    - kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
      Trump has a ton of experience defaulting on business loans. I can't see a better reason for him to take control and use his magic touch to fix everything.
  - wavefunction 10y ago
    Of course one must note that experience in foreign policy may not be as important as the outcomes achieved during that experience.
    - travmatt 10y ago
      The Iranian nuclear deal?
      - wavefunction 10y ago
        That was during Secretary John Kerry's tenure. Hillary has threatened war to enforce the deal, which is something...[0] [0]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/9/hillary-clinton-threatens-war-enforce-iran-deal/?page=all http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/9/hillary-clint...

knodi123 10y ago

> There is no reason the U.S. should be allies with the House of Saud. We have almost no aligned interests and very different views on human rights and Wahhabism. Well, in isolation, sure. But in the broader geopolitical sense, it really does make sense to have at least one close ally in that region.

maze-le 10y ago
> But in the broader geopolitical sense, it really does make sense to have at least one close ally in that region. What about Israel, Turkey, Egypt?
- cmurf 10y ago
  Really? You think their moral positions are significantly better than Saudi Arabia? And they have essentially zero to offer economically? Their governments aren't any more sane or stable, in the enduring sense, than Saudi Arabia.
  - maze-le 10y ago
    This was not a moral judgement, I simply questioned the claim, that Saudi Arabia is the only influential US-ally in the middle east.
    - knodi123 10y ago
      you're right, I was inaccurate about that. But saudi is certainly a valuable ally, right?
    - toyg 10y ago
      Influentially speaking, they are. Israel has zero influence on neighbours except for threats of nuclear war. The Egyptian government is currently seen as illegitimate pretty much everywhere. Turkey leverages its geopolitical position towards Europe and Russia, but Erdogan has few friends left and might well end up like Mubarak in the long run. For good or bad, the combo of economic and religious power Saudis can swing is pretty unmatched in the region at the moment -- their only counterweight being, potentially, an Iranian state with smart people at the wheel for more than a few token years.

Shivetya 10y ago

I would prefer that instead of piking more heads we, the US, just bugger off. I have no issue with a strong military, I have a big concern with protecting countries or having bases in countries that have more than sufficient GDP to protect themselves. For the time being availability of oil for all nations through the Gulf states is as simple as keeping a US CV fleet or two in the area. It benefits all nations outside the region and doesn't require propping up repressive regimes to accomplish.

pjc50 10y ago
having bases in countries that have more than sufficient GDP to protect themselves As in Germany, the bases aren't there for the US to protect that country but the other way round: to ensure that country remains US-aligned.
- at-fates-hands 10y ago
  Actually most of these bases are there because when there's trouble in those parts of the world, we need a place to be able to get troops, equipment and supplies into a given theater in a fast, efficient manner. The countries reap the economic benefits for sure, so it's a win/win situation for both countries. Not so much when the US starts cutting back on its military: City officials in Heidelberg expect annual financial losses of up to $25 million, as a result of the closures of U.S. bases in the region. "We estimate that a total of about 1,000 civilian jobs will be lost, when the nearly 8,000 service members pull out," said Diana Scharl, a spokesperson for the city of Heidelberg. http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/30/12482964-bye-bye-gi-deep-impact-for-many-germans-as-us-troops-downsize?lite http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/30/12482964-bye-b... I'd love for us to pull back from a lot of these areas, but let's face it, when one country invades another, they don't call France, Ireland, or Norway to help them do they? They expect the US to be the world's defender from the bad guys.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > I'd love for us to pull back from a lot of these areas, but let's face it, when one country invades another, they don't call France, Ireland, or Norway to help them do they? 1. This makes it sound like you are talking about the invading country calling for help. Which is probably not what you intend. 2. In point of fact, if its in Africa, the boots on the ground for any call for help (whether the problem which provoked it is internal fighting or international conflict) are more likely to be French than American.

hackuser 10y ago

> There is no reason the U.S. should be allies with the House of Saud. There is a very good reason: 1) The US needs a stable oil supply 2) The US needs global stability, for which the world needs a stable oil supply. 3) A stable oil supply requires a stable Persian Gulf region. 4) Leverage and influence with the most powerful nation in the Persian Gulf (with the possible exception of Iran, an enemy of the U.S.), is very valuable and perhaps necessary to stability in the Persian Gulf. That arrangement worked for decades, and look what's happening now that it fell apart. Recently things have changed a little: The US has become less dependent on Persian Gulf oil due to domestic supplies; there is/was a global glut of oil, making the world less dependent on the Gulf; US-Iran relations improved somewhat; and Saudi religious fundamentalism has gone from being their internal problem to a global problem. Also, US policy changed: The US became a cause of instability in the Persian Gulf with the invasion of Iraq and the reckless disregard for the need to find a stable, political outcome for that country (no planning for occupation, etc.). Also, the Arab Spring created a dilemma: Support democracy or support short/medium-term stability? At times the US chose democracy, further undermining current stability (democracies would of course be more stable in the long run, but getting from here to there involves a period of instability).

int_19h 10y ago
And why is Iran an enemy of US?
- travmatt 10y ago
  I can't tell if you're genuinely asking, but Iran is widely considered one of the largest sponsors of state-funded terrorism in the world. Lots of self-flagellating Americans like to ask about the US/Saudi Arabia, but Iran's IRGC and esp. Quds Force are famous for their successes in cultivating and logistically supplying terror groups (think Hamas, Hezbollah) - if the US took such an intense and long-term view of the ME I think the world would be different.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    Any such assessment largely depends on your definition of "state-funded terrorism". Saudis, for example, fund a massive network of Salafi religious schools all over the world, that has a very impressive record of radicalizing their students. Said students then end up running organizations like Caucasus Emirate or Daesh, or just blowing up local targets of opportunity (including moderate Muslim clergy that is trying to actively counter Salafi propaganda in their area, thereby preventing or at least limiting further radicalization). But most importantly, I was asking about US. How many terrorist groups in US does Iran fund, and what damage have they done to date?

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

"...We have almost no aligned interests..." So if you buy the story that effectively, T.E. Lawrence installed the House of Saud, then we have the interest of maintaining the Former British Empire. S.A. is also parked on both Mecca and Medina. We also have an interest in an ally, no matter how ... dissonant ... in that spot. "... and very different views on human rights and Wahhabism..." With maximum snark - celebrate the cultural diversity. One of the most interesting features of nation-state-dom is that we can smile and ignore all that. Er, right until Wahabbism runs smack up into our Security Industrial Complex.