5 ms·

Energy has little to do with it. US support for Saudi Arabia is based on an irrational opposition to Iran.

eloff 8y ago
It's hardly irrational. You can argue the merits of their reasoning, but not that they have reasons. Don't dismiss viewpoints you don't agree with as irrational - that shuts down any attempt at a real dialogue or understanding.
- stevenjohns 8y ago
  I'm failing to find out why the US would find Iran to be a threat -- to the point where they would support extremist Islamists in Syria and smile when mentioning Saudi Arabia. This is excluding the sanctions that have crippled the country for years, backtracking on the nuclear deal and various other pointless actions. It is most definitely irrational, because there is no rational reason why the US has that position.
  - fein 8y ago
    The rational reason is due to an irrational relationship with Israel.
    - wahern 8y ago
      I think Iran's posture toward Israel has much to do with the antagonistic relationship between Iran and the U.S. The U.S. allied with Egypt and Saudi Arabia long before those countries recognized Israel's so-called right to exist, and even during times when those countries actively supported militant groups hostile to Israel. Egypt's and Saudi Arabia's stance toward Israel has softened partly because of their relationship to the U.S., and partly because of the bifurcation of regional interests--the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Turkey, notably, has recently vacillated between strong support of Israel (including bilateral--U.S. not involved--strategic security cooperation) to being passive-aggressive (i.e. ignoring arms shipments). Not coincidentally, Turkey has had a similar relationship with Iran. And through all of this Turkey has remained a NATO member. So... it's complex. The U.S. is perfectly capable of normalizing relationships with a country hostile to Israel, as long as that hostility isn't openly flouted. The degree to which Iran openly flouts its hostility to Israel, and to which the U.S. stylizes itself as Israel's protector, is context dependent and self-serving and really not about Israel, per se. All of which is to say, the U.S. is antagonistic to Iran not because of Israel, but because of the U.S. And vice-versa. And it all quite clearly started with the Iranian Revolution.
      - toomanybeersies 8y ago
        Not to mention that Israel secretly supported Iran during the Iran-Iraq war [1]. It's only since the 1990s that Iran has been actively hostile towards Israel. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_role_in_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_role_in_the_Iran%E2...
  - ArchTypical 8y ago
    > I'm failing to find out why the US would find Iran to be a threat They have money and influence. They have a stated and record of trying to harm the USA and the US allies. It's a threat and wouldn't take long to become a nuclear power (see pakistan). What's hard to understand about the last 75 years? The speed of technology transfer is less than a change in Iranian regime. Not implying Pakistan is a threat, SMH
  - oska 8y ago
    I think your criticism of the USA's trenchant hostility towards Iran is well made. I would posit that the reason for the hostility is that the USA (in its imperialist form) wants to have influence and control across the globe. Iran is a naturally stable power in that part of the world that has existed in some form or other for thousands of years but one over which the USA has currently no influence or control. The USA hates such a situation and will be hostile to any political entity that shows such independence.
  - Fricken 8y ago
    Maintaining hegemony over the middle East has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy since the end of World War 2. It used to be about oil, and still very much about the pertrodollar, but is also based largely on the belief that should America lose control of the Middle East, the balance of world power will shift to Russia and China, and America's global economoic supremacy will be lost. Iran has long been a thorn in America's side, but Israel and Saudi Arabia are key allies in keeping the Middle east too fucked up to make their own decisions, because if they could they would align with their traditional economic partners in the east.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > I'm failing to find out why the US would find Iran to be a threat I can see Iran being a regional threat, and whoever has power in that region controls a major portion of the world's energy supply. However, I don't see why an Iranian-dominated region is worse than a Saudi-dominated region. Iran seems more democratic and stable than Saudi Arabia, at a first approximation, but both are brutal, anti-democratic, oppressive regimes. And IIRC the Saudis have been the primary supporters of extremist Sunnis worldwide. How is Saudi Arabia better for the U.S. than Iran?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - stale2002 8y ago
    Well, for one, Iran is the only major ME country that is pushing for the complete destruction of Israel. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan, on the other hand, all work closely with Israel.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bilbo0s 8y ago
Our policymakers have a rationale for that opposition though. Now that rationale is probably foolish in the extreme. But they do have a rationale.
mbesto 8y ago
And ummm, money...
- WalterSear 8y ago
  AIPAC money. >In 1997, Fortune magazine named AIPAC the second-most powerful influence group in Washington, D. C.[46] According to journalist Connie Bruck, AIPAC has been able to "deliver the support of Congress" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affai...
  - dpwm 8y ago
    Around the time that more Russia election meddling stories were breaking, a friend (probably now identified as a Russian bot for his views) sent me a link to a video put out by AIPAC on the importance of bipartisanship for ensuring that the US maintains a favourable stance. [0] Of course, this is a fully legal way to influence the US political system. Sure, it costs a fair bit, but it doesn't matter who's in power. I was impressed by how unobfuscated the video's message was. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvFYn9RbYlc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvFYn9RbYlc
Theodores 8y ago
A century ago the Middle East was sliced and diced with various powers getting part of the pie. Iran (Persia) was supposed to have been 'shared' between Britain and Russia, but the Russians had their own difficulties so the Tsar wasn't around to take on 'his share' of Iran. Nonetheless 'British Petroleum' got in there for a while. It was Roosevelt that did the deal with the Saudis. The deal was as follows: sell us your oil in perpetuity and we will make sure that nothing threatens the 'royal' family. Note the naming of the Saudi Aramco state oil business. 'Aramco' has the letters 'am' in it and that is because it is the 'Arab American Company'. You are correct that the U.S. has 'irrational' opposition to Iran. This is because the U.S. has irrational opposition to any country that does not care about the dollar. The only truly sovereign nations are the ones that the U.S. has 'irrational' opposition to, everything else is a vassal state.
reza_n 8y ago
Believe it or not, US support has made KSA extremely weak, especially militarily. So its more like keep your enemies close, or in this case, oil targets. US could topple KSA in a matter of months.
- InitialLastName 8y ago
  Especially since we've sold them their entire military, and it's likely we know where (at least some of) the cyber-security holes are in that.
- rgbrenner 8y ago
  SA is one of the largest arms purchasers in the world. They spend 10% of the gdp on their military. If the US spent that much, we would be spending 3x what we are currently -- or almost $2T/year. They are about as strong as they can possibly be. But at the end of the day, they're 32m people. 1/10th the US population or about the same as Texas or New York. The US didn't "make ksa extremely weak"... they're weak because they're small.
oh_sigh 8y ago
Opposition to the Iranian regime is pretty straight forward. Which is a shame, because had history played out slightly differently, the huge, progressive middle class of Iran could have been in power and a natural ally of the US instead of the religious zealots.

It's hardly irrational. You can argue the merits of their reasoning, but not that they have reasons. Don't dismiss viewpoints you don't agree with as irrational - that shuts down any attempt at a real dialogue or understanding.

stevenjohns 8y ago
I'm failing to find out why the US would find Iran to be a threat -- to the point where they would support extremist Islamists in Syria and smile when mentioning Saudi Arabia. This is excluding the sanctions that have crippled the country for years, backtracking on the nuclear deal and various other pointless actions. It is most definitely irrational, because there is no rational reason why the US has that position.
- fein 8y ago
  The rational reason is due to an irrational relationship with Israel.
  - wahern 8y ago
    I think Iran's posture toward Israel has much to do with the antagonistic relationship between Iran and the U.S. The U.S. allied with Egypt and Saudi Arabia long before those countries recognized Israel's so-called right to exist, and even during times when those countries actively supported militant groups hostile to Israel. Egypt's and Saudi Arabia's stance toward Israel has softened partly because of their relationship to the U.S., and partly because of the bifurcation of regional interests--the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Turkey, notably, has recently vacillated between strong support of Israel (including bilateral--U.S. not involved--strategic security cooperation) to being passive-aggressive (i.e. ignoring arms shipments). Not coincidentally, Turkey has had a similar relationship with Iran. And through all of this Turkey has remained a NATO member. So... it's complex. The U.S. is perfectly capable of normalizing relationships with a country hostile to Israel, as long as that hostility isn't openly flouted. The degree to which Iran openly flouts its hostility to Israel, and to which the U.S. stylizes itself as Israel's protector, is context dependent and self-serving and really not about Israel, per se. All of which is to say, the U.S. is antagonistic to Iran not because of Israel, but because of the U.S. And vice-versa. And it all quite clearly started with the Iranian Revolution.
    - toomanybeersies 8y ago
      Not to mention that Israel secretly supported Iran during the Iran-Iraq war [1]. It's only since the 1990s that Iran has been actively hostile towards Israel. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_role_in_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_role_in_the_Iran%E2...
- ArchTypical 8y ago
  > I'm failing to find out why the US would find Iran to be a threat They have money and influence. They have a stated and record of trying to harm the USA and the US allies. It's a threat and wouldn't take long to become a nuclear power (see pakistan). What's hard to understand about the last 75 years? The speed of technology transfer is less than a change in Iranian regime. Not implying Pakistan is a threat, SMH
- oska 8y ago
  I think your criticism of the USA's trenchant hostility towards Iran is well made. I would posit that the reason for the hostility is that the USA (in its imperialist form) wants to have influence and control across the globe. Iran is a naturally stable power in that part of the world that has existed in some form or other for thousands of years but one over which the USA has currently no influence or control. The USA hates such a situation and will be hostile to any political entity that shows such independence.
- Fricken 8y ago
  Maintaining hegemony over the middle East has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy since the end of World War 2. It used to be about oil, and still very much about the pertrodollar, but is also based largely on the belief that should America lose control of the Middle East, the balance of world power will shift to Russia and China, and America's global economoic supremacy will be lost. Iran has long been a thorn in America's side, but Israel and Saudi Arabia are key allies in keeping the Middle east too fucked up to make their own decisions, because if they could they would align with their traditional economic partners in the east.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > I'm failing to find out why the US would find Iran to be a threat I can see Iran being a regional threat, and whoever has power in that region controls a major portion of the world's energy supply. However, I don't see why an Iranian-dominated region is worse than a Saudi-dominated region. Iran seems more democratic and stable than Saudi Arabia, at a first approximation, but both are brutal, anti-democratic, oppressive regimes. And IIRC the Saudis have been the primary supporters of extremist Sunnis worldwide. How is Saudi Arabia better for the U.S. than Iran?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- stale2002 8y ago
  Well, for one, Iran is the only major ME country that is pushing for the complete destruction of Israel. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan, on the other hand, all work closely with Israel.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

bilbo0s 8y ago

Our policymakers have a rationale for that opposition though. Now that rationale is probably foolish in the extreme. But they do have a rationale.

mbesto 8y ago

And ummm, money...

WalterSear 8y ago
AIPAC money. >In 1997, Fortune magazine named AIPAC the second-most powerful influence group in Washington, D. C.[46] According to journalist Connie Bruck, AIPAC has been able to "deliver the support of Congress" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affai...
- dpwm 8y ago
  Around the time that more Russia election meddling stories were breaking, a friend (probably now identified as a Russian bot for his views) sent me a link to a video put out by AIPAC on the importance of bipartisanship for ensuring that the US maintains a favourable stance. [0] Of course, this is a fully legal way to influence the US political system. Sure, it costs a fair bit, but it doesn't matter who's in power. I was impressed by how unobfuscated the video's message was. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvFYn9RbYlc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvFYn9RbYlc

Theodores 8y ago

A century ago the Middle East was sliced and diced with various powers getting part of the pie. Iran (Persia) was supposed to have been 'shared' between Britain and Russia, but the Russians had their own difficulties so the Tsar wasn't around to take on 'his share' of Iran. Nonetheless 'British Petroleum' got in there for a while. It was Roosevelt that did the deal with the Saudis. The deal was as follows: sell us your oil in perpetuity and we will make sure that nothing threatens the 'royal' family. Note the naming of the Saudi Aramco state oil business. 'Aramco' has the letters 'am' in it and that is because it is the 'Arab American Company'. You are correct that the U.S. has 'irrational' opposition to Iran. This is because the U.S. has irrational opposition to any country that does not care about the dollar. The only truly sovereign nations are the ones that the U.S. has 'irrational' opposition to, everything else is a vassal state.

reza_n 8y ago

Believe it or not, US support has made KSA extremely weak, especially militarily. So its more like keep your enemies close, or in this case, oil targets. US could topple KSA in a matter of months.

InitialLastName 8y ago
Especially since we've sold them their entire military, and it's likely we know where (at least some of) the cyber-security holes are in that.
rgbrenner 8y ago
SA is one of the largest arms purchasers in the world. They spend 10% of the gdp on their military. If the US spent that much, we would be spending 3x what we are currently -- or almost $2T/year. They are about as strong as they can possibly be. But at the end of the day, they're 32m people. 1/10th the US population or about the same as Texas or New York. The US didn't "make ksa extremely weak"... they're weak because they're small.

oh_sigh 8y ago

Opposition to the Iranian regime is pretty straight forward. Which is a shame, because had history played out slightly differently, the huge, progressive middle class of Iran could have been in power and a natural ally of the US instead of the religious zealots.