4 ms·

Intelligence sharing, mutual distaste for Iran, strategically placed ally, arms deals.

rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
> Intelligence sharing, mutual distaste for Iran, strategically placed ally, arms deals. It's the snake that bites its own tail, because these all go back to oil. About the alleged common "distaste for Iran", for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization_of_the_Iranian_oil_industry#Aftermath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization_of_the_Iranian...
- Kaveren 8y ago
  I think that's an oversimplification of current affairs. It's complicated. Iran wants to spread its sect of Islam, and that is at odds with a lot of the Arab world. Iran also hates Israel much more than Saudi Arabia does, and that comes into play. The Middle East is also important because of radical Islam (you can debate the role of Saudi Arabia in 9/11 and whatnot but I don't see that being about oil). I don't see how the coup in 1953 means that we don't have a distaste for Iran today. Obviously it's an important part of recent history, but the government is not the same. The US and the UK used to fight in wars, but now we are allies. Arms deals don't go back to oil because it benefits the American military industrial complex, not the energy industry. Edit: Clarified statement on coup. Edit again: I clicked on your old unedited link so I replied to a false understanding of what your point was, now my reply looks dumb.
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
    Sorry for the late link change, it was to correct a copy-paste error >Iran wants to spread its sect of Islam, and that is at odds with a lot of the Arab world That had nothing to do with the US. >I don't see how the coup in 1953 means that we don't have a distaste for Iran today I understand that the Iranian Revolution is an obvious reaction to the 1953 coup, which made the two nations distaste one another for a gooood time. Without oil, no coup. Without the coup, one less big reason for Iranians to put Islamist to power and chant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America All these things became complicated because of oil. Switching to renewables would slowly but surely simplify all of this.
buboard 8y ago
Strategically for what? all of those are related to oil and ARAMCO. Peace would not be an objective if the goal is to sell arms. And i doubt the americans have an inherent preference between the saudi and iranian people (maybe you could say that about israel however)

> Intelligence sharing, mutual distaste for Iran, strategically placed ally, arms deals. It's the snake that bites its own tail, because these all go back to oil. About the alleged common "distaste for Iran", for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization_of_the_Iranian_oil_industry#Aftermath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization_of_the_Iranian...

Kaveren 8y ago
I think that's an oversimplification of current affairs. It's complicated. Iran wants to spread its sect of Islam, and that is at odds with a lot of the Arab world. Iran also hates Israel much more than Saudi Arabia does, and that comes into play. The Middle East is also important because of radical Islam (you can debate the role of Saudi Arabia in 9/11 and whatnot but I don't see that being about oil). I don't see how the coup in 1953 means that we don't have a distaste for Iran today. Obviously it's an important part of recent history, but the government is not the same. The US and the UK used to fight in wars, but now we are allies. Arms deals don't go back to oil because it benefits the American military industrial complex, not the energy industry. Edit: Clarified statement on coup. Edit again: I clicked on your old unedited link so I replied to a false understanding of what your point was, now my reply looks dumb.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
  Sorry for the late link change, it was to correct a copy-paste error >Iran wants to spread its sect of Islam, and that is at odds with a lot of the Arab world That had nothing to do with the US. >I don't see how the coup in 1953 means that we don't have a distaste for Iran today I understand that the Iranian Revolution is an obvious reaction to the 1953 coup, which made the two nations distaste one another for a gooood time. Without oil, no coup. Without the coup, one less big reason for Iranians to put Islamist to power and chant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America All these things became complicated because of oil. Switching to renewables would slowly but surely simplify all of this.

buboard 8y ago

Strategically for what? all of those are related to oil and ARAMCO. Peace would not be an objective if the goal is to sell arms. And i doubt the americans have an inherent preference between the saudi and iranian people (maybe you could say that about israel however)