• Wednesday, January 29, 2020

How Washington stabbed the Saudis in the back

Discussion in 'Middle East & Africa' started by BLACKEAGLE, Dec 2, 2013.

  1. BLACKEAGLE

    BLACKEAGLE ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    10,887
    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Ratings:
    +4 / 21,432 / -3
    Country:
    Jordan
    Location:
    Jordan
    How Washington stabbed the Saudis in the back, and why the Iran deal will start a nuclear arms race in the Arabian Gulf.

    [​IMG]

    Pundits and policymakers are missing the big worry about the Obama administration's Iranian nuclear deal: its greatest impact is not ensuring that Iran doesn't get the bomb, but that the Saudis will.

    Indeed, the risk of arms race in the Middle East -- on a nuclear hair trigger -- just went up rather dramatically. And it increasingly looks like the coming Sunni-Shiite war will be nuclearized.

    Two aspects of the agreement, in particular, will consolidate Saudi fears that an Iranian bomb is now almost certainly coming to a theater near them. First, the pre-emptive concession that the comprehensive solution still to be negotiated will leave Iran with a permanent capability to enrich uranium -- the key component of any program to develop nuclear weapons. In the blink of an eye, and without adequate notice or explanation to key allies who believe their national existence hangs in the balance, the United States appears to have fatally compromised the long-standing, legally-binding requirements of at least five United Nations Security Council resolutions. If the Saudis needed any confirmation that last month's rejection of a Security Council seat was merited -- on grounds that U.S. retrenchment has rendered the organization not just irrelevant, but increasingly dangerous to the kingdom's core interests -- they just got it, in spades.

    Second, the agreement suggests that even the comprehensive solution will be time-limited. In other words, whatever restrictions are eventually imposed on Iran's nuclear program won't be permanent. The implication is quite clear: At a point in time still to be negotiated (three years, five, ten?) and long after the international sanctions regime has been dismantled, the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear program will be left unshackled, free to enjoy the same rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty as any other member in good standing. That looks an awful lot like a license to one day build an industrial-size nuclear program, if Iran so chooses, with largely unlimited ability to enrich uranium and reprocess plutonium, a la Japan.

    But of course Iran is not Japan -- a peaceful, stable democracy aligned with the West. It is a bloody-minded, terror-sponsoring, hegemony-seeking revisionist power that has serially violated its non-proliferation commitments and which aims to destroy Israel, drive America out of the Middle East, and bring down the House of Saud.

    Whether or not President Obama fully appreciates that distinction, the Saudis most definitely do.

    Of course, Saudi concerns extend well beyond the four corners of last week's agreement. For Riyadh, Iran's march toward the bomb is only the most dangerous element -- the coup de grace in its expanding arsenal, if you will -- of an ongoing, region-wide campaign to overturn the Middle East's existing order in favor of one dominated by Tehran. The destabilization and weakening of Saudi Arabia is absolutely central to that project, and in Saudi eyes has been manifested in a systematic effort by Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to extend its influence and tentacles near and far, by sowing violence, sabotage, terror, and insurrection -- in Bahrain, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and most destructively of all, in the IRGC's massive intervention to abet the slaughter in Syria and salvage the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

    Fairly or not, from the Saudi perspective, the nuclear deal not only ignores these central elements of the existential challenge that Iran poses to the kingdom's well-being, it threatens to greatly exacerbate them by elevating and legitimizing the Islamic Republic's claim to great power status. As surely as Obama's chemical weapons deal with Syria implicitly green-lighted the intensification of the Assad regime's murder machine, so, too, the Saudis fear, a nuclear deal with the mullahs will grant a free hand -- if not an implicit American imprimatur -- to the long-standing Iranian quest for regional supremacy that, to Saudi minds, won't end until it reaches Mecca and Medina.

    It should be said that Saudi paranoia about being sacrificed on the altar of a U.S.-Iranian deal is nothing new. But the fact is that, today, the Saudis look around and believe they've got more reasons than ever before to think that they're largely on their own.

    As the saying goes, even paranoids have enemies. On one issue after another that they've deemed absolutely vital to their interests -- Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and now Iran -- the Saudis view the Obama administration as having been at best indifferent to their most urgent concerns, and at worst openly hostile. To Saudi minds, a very clear and dangerous pattern has now been conclusively established. And its defining characteristic is not pretty at all to behold: the selling out of longtime allies, even betrayal. Indeed, the Saudi listen to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rail against the Iran deal and realize that even Israel, by leaps and bounds America's foremost friend in the Middle East, is not immune. And they wonder where in the world does that leave them. How do you say "screwed" in Arabic?

    The crisis of confidence in the reliability, purposes, and competence of American power has reached an all-time high. The Saudis have taken due note of National Security Advisor Susan Rice's declaration that "there's a whole world out there" beyond the Middle East that needs attention, and her predecessor's lament that the United States had "over-invested" in the region. The kingdom has become increasingly convinced that there's a method to Obama's madness, a systematic effort to reduce America's exposure and involvement in the region's conflicts, to downsize Washington's role and leadership, to retrench and, yes, to retreat.

    Whatever the reason -- a weak and unprincipled president, a tired and fed up population, a broken economy and dysfunctional politics, growing energy independence (the Saudis cite all these and more) -- there's a growing conviction in Riyadh that the United States has run dangerously short of breath when it comes to standing by its allies in the Middle East. Obama wants out. Face-saving deals on issues like Syria and Iran that are designed not to resolve the region's most dangerous problems, but rather to defer them from exploding until he's safely out of office are the order of the day -- Saudi vital interests be damned ... or so they fear.

    It must be noted that the breach in trust has become intensely personal. The Saudi dismay with Obama and his chief lieutenants is hard to overstate at this point. Secretary of State John Kerry in particular has become a target of derision. In the days immediately following the Assad regime's Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack, the phone calls between Kerry and senior Saudi leaders apparently ran fast and furious. Proof that Syria had smashed Obama's red line on chemical weapons was overwhelming, Kerry assured his interlocutors. A U.S. attack to punish the Assad regime was a sure thing. The Saudis were ecstatic, convinced that at long last Obama was prepared to get off the sidelines and decisively shift the conflict's trajectory in favor of the West and against Iran. Intelligence, war planning and targeting information were allegedly exchanged. Hints abound that the Saudis were ginned up not only to help finance the operation, but to participate actively with planes and bombs of their own. King Abdullah is rumored to have ordered relevant ministries to prepare to go to the Saudi equivalent of DEFCON 2, the level just short of war.

    Then, on Aug. 31, the Saudis turned on CNN, expecting to watch President Obama announce the imminent enforcement of his red-line -- only to see him flinch by handing the decision off to Congress. The Saudis were enraged, dumbfounded, and convinced that Kerry had deliberately deceived and misled them. Told that Kerry himself had been caught largely unaware by Obama's decision, the Saudis were hardly mollified. A liar or an irrelevancy? Either one was disastrous from their perspective.

    Fear and Loathing in the Kingdom - By John Hannah | Foreign Policy
     
  2. haman10

    haman10 ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    9,691
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2013
    Ratings:
    +10 / 25,028 / -13
    Country:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    Location:
    Syrian Arab Republic
    troll thread by a troll ; this is the real article :

    How Washington stabbed the Saudis in the back, and why the Iran deal will start a nuclear arms race in the Persian Gulf.

    Fear and Loathing in the Kingdom - By John Hannah | Foreign Policy

    such a pathetic creature u are @BLACKEAGLE , u are a true troll trying to pathetically be racist .

    BTW :

    The name of the gulf, historically and internationally known as the Persian Gulf after the land of Persia (Iran), has been disputed by some Arab countries since the 1960s.[12] Rivalry between Iran and some Arab states, along with the emergence of pan-Arabism andArab nationalism, has seen the name Arabian Gulf become predominant in most Arab countries.[13][14] Names beyond these two have also been applied to or proposed for this body of water.

    Persian Gulf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    the waterway is called "persian gulf" by the whole world and by UNTIED NATIONS .

    @WebMaster @Zakii @Jungibaaz @Serpentine

    this is becoming more and more pathetic !! it causes just trolling and stupid racism !!

    please rename the topic to the one mentioned by the article at here :

    Fear and Loathing in the Kingdom - By John Hannah | Foreign Policy
     
  3. Serpentine

    Serpentine INT'L MOD

    Messages:
    12,096
    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2011
    Ratings:
    +30 / 34,182 / -0
    Country:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    Location:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    @BLACKEAGLE

    You really spent time to change the name of Persian Gulf in the original article to fake one? :lol:

    @haman10:
    leave it, what matters is that the whole world knows the truth, including the author of the article.


    On topic: How is KSA going to have nukes? It doesn't have even initial phases of a domestic nuclear program. And forget about Pakistan, they won't give you nukes. Pakistan's economy isn't that strong right now to invite international sanctions and isolation on itself.
     
  4. nirreich

    nirreich SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,051
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Ratings:
    +0 / 584 / -0
    Country:
    Israel
    Location:
    Israel
    The US owe nothing to KSA after spending so much on defending this country. From different reasons I hope that the US will return to its senses and prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
     
  5. -SINAN-

    -SINAN- ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    16,039
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2013
    Ratings:
    +0 / 48 / -0
    Country:
    Turkey
    Location:
    Turkey
    @haman10

    If i say Turkish Gulf will you go mad. :partay:
     
  6. haman10

    haman10 ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    9,691
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2013
    Ratings:
    +10 / 25,028 / -13
    Country:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    Location:
    Syrian Arab Republic
    lol ! :D :D :D
     
  7. Hashshāshīn

    Hashshāshīn SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,068
    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Ratings:
    +1 / 2,244 / -3
    You should just call it 'Gulf' on PDF and end this crap. Every topic goes offtopic because of this.

    Anyways, on-topic, is that a surprise? USA just wants its own benefit, and then ditches you, They've done that with every country.

    I am 100% sure, in the next few decades or so, the Saudi 'Royal' Family with have the same fate as Gaddafi/Saddam.
     
  8. nirreich

    nirreich SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,051
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Ratings:
    +0 / 584 / -0
    Country:
    Israel
    Location:
    Israel
    The US behave like any other country and that perfectly legitimate. However, as the current major power, the US has a responsibility for the stability of the Middle East and it will be threatened by a nuclear Iran.
     
  9. olcayto

    olcayto FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,964
    Joined:
    May 10, 2013
    Ratings:
    +0 / 3,471 / -1
    Country:
    Turkey
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Why would the US have a responsibility for the Middle-East ?
     
  10. Hashshāshīn

    Hashshāshīn SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,068
    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Ratings:
    +1 / 2,244 / -3
    Why? Since when do foreign country have a responsibility for other countries? Is there a treaty?
     
  11. My-Analogous

    My-Analogous SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    6,533
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Ratings:
    +2 / 4,950 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia
    How about Asian gulf? LOL
     
  12. rmi5

    rmi5 ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    9,267
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2013
    Ratings:
    +23 / 16,309 / -4
    Country:
    Azerbaijan
    Location:
    Zambia
    USA has no obligation to seek others interests. If they want, they can seek their own interests by themselves.
    US government need to seek US interests only. what president Obama did about Syria, was the best thing to do. he forced them to remove their chemical weapons and avoided to intrude in that mess.
    Those foolish sheikhs need to handle their own interests by themselves. US is not their daddy to take care of them.
     
  13. AUz

    AUz ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    8,028
    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2010
    Ratings:
    +29 / 12,436 / -44
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United States
    lol..retarded article from an hate-mongering and usually anti-Islamic christian conservative site.

    Stop posting bs here...


    "Next Sunni-Shia war would be nuclearized" ...How many wars "sunni-shia" have fought till now, before colonists fanned this bs to destroy Islamic fabric, and impose their own culture in Muslim lands? yet people continue to pander to this bs...

    Rather than depending on others, Arabs and Persians need to mend their relations and develop a long lasting peace based on mutual trade, benefit, and cultural exchange.

    Otherwise, keep b!tching to each other while your 'masters' will keep ruling the region.
     
  14. Hack-Hook

    Hack-Hook ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    10,354
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Ratings:
    +2 / 11,711 / -0
    Country:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    Location:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    then instead of turkey I say kurdia .
    now you can decide for yourself
     
  15. haman10

    haman10 ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    9,691
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2013
    Ratings:
    +10 / 25,028 / -13
    Country:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    Location:
    Syrian Arab Republic
    he was kidding bro .....