3 ms·
> 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?
by 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 agoReally? 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 agoThis 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 agoyou're right, I was inaccurate about that. But saudi is certainly a valuable ally, right?
- toyg 10y agoInfluentially 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.
- int_19h 10y agoYes, they are significantly better in a moral sense. They don't behead people for sorcery, or stone them to death for adultery. They also don't finance Wahhabi madrasa in other countries. Here's an example of what Saudi money buys elsewhere in the world: http://www.rferl.org/content/tatarstan-attack-spar-fears-that-islamist-threat-is-spreading/24650674.html http://www.rferl.org/content/tatarstan-attack-spar-fears-tha...