Global Events & Politics Überthread

cajunrevenge said:



Saudia Arabia appears to have murdered a journalist in Turkey using their embassy. Political fallout could be huge.
Click to expand...

I've got a deal for them, they give back the 1/3 of our entire stock market that they own and give use cheap oil for the next 25 years and we protect them from the Turks. What do you guys think?
 
I’d settle for not selling them weapons, rescinding our support for their proxy war in Yemen, and personally sanctioning certain individuals until MBS is sidelined.

Our KSA policy has always been bad, but the administration’s embrace of MBS (backstopped by a lot of media elites) has taken it to a new level. Maybe this will wake people up?

Now might be a good time to mention that we don’t have an Ambassador in Riyadh. Apparently Jared’s been handling the relationship...which is in no small part the reason we are where we are.
 
We have to take the world as it is. But we also have to keep our eyes open and our minds free of delusion. And that applies MBS more than most.
 
The new administration clearly took a side among the largely Muslim nations in the Mideast. Nothing wrong with that on its face. The previous administration wanted the opponents to fight it out over there and, in truth, that didn't turn out so well. But anyone who believes that the Saudis are bent on reform is really kidding themselves.
 
50PoundHead said:
The new administration clearly took a side among the largely Muslim nations in the Mideast. Nothing wrong with that on its face. The previous administration wanted the opponents to fight it out over there and, in truth, that didn't turn out so well. But anyone who believes that the Saudis are bent on reform is really kidding themselves.
Click to expand...

Valid points but what horse would you be willing to bet on in the Middle East if not the Saudis?
 
Krgrecw said:
Valid points but what horse would you be willing to bet on in the Middle East if not the Saudis?
Click to expand...

If I had to bet on anyone, I'd throw my weight behind the Kurds, seeing that they've helped us at every stretch and we don't really seem to reciprocate, largely because they are stateless (thanks to Churchill). My fear is that the same thing will happen in Saudi Arabia in the future that happened in Iran in 1979. Being aligned with the United States isn't always a blessing in that part of the world.
 
Um, what was the alternative to embracing MBS, the King’s son?

Advocating for free and fair elections - just like ours?

Foreign policy in a vacuum. Gotta love it.
 
Hawk said:
Um, what was the alternative to embracing MBS, the King’s son?

Advocating for free and fair elections - just like ours?

Foreign policy in a vacuum. Gotta love it.
Click to expand...

We have to deal with the world as it is. But there is a long continuum of options between having a strictly transactional relationship and being chums.

The Arabian peninsula alone has several countries that have issues of various kinds with the Saudis. We have plenty of room to tilt this way and that way as a means of exerting our will and pursuing our interests.

As for MBS himself, Saudi royal politics is opaque and I have no way of knowing if any external influence carries much sway over it. That will sort itself out and I wouldn't presume one outcome or another.

I've been there a few times. It is a very interesting if somewhat creepy place. Still very much a tribal society. And the main tribes from the central region still carry a lot of sway. It was explained to me that it is essential for anyone trying to understand the country to have some sort of diagram showing which tribe the various wives of various princes belong too. The old system of alliance cemented by marriage is alive and well in Saudi Arabia.

The question has been raised as to which horse we should hitch ourselves to. We don't have to commit too strongly to any particular horse and it would not be wise to do so.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
We have to deal with the world as it is. But there is a long continuum of options between having a strictly transactional relationship and being chums.

The Arabian peninsula alone has several countries that have issues of various kinds with the Saudis. We have plenty of room to tilt this way and that way as a means of exerting our will and pursuing our interests.

As for MBS himself, Saudi royal politics is opaque and I have no way of knowing if any external influence carries much sway over it. That will sort itself out and I wouldn't presume one outcome or another.

I've been there a few times. It is a very interesting if somewhat creepy place. Still very much a tribal society. And the main tribes from the central region still carry a lot of sway. It was explained to me that it is essential for anyone trying to understand the country to have some sort of diagram showing which tribe the various wives of various princes belong too. The old system of alliance cemented by marriage is alive and well in Saudi Arabia.

The question has been raised as to which horse we should hitch ourselves to. We don't have to commit too strongly to any particular horse and it would not be wise to do so.
Click to expand...

I can't remember the commentator (it might have been Nicholas Burns) who said something to the effect that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" doesn't necessarily work in the Mideast. I mentioned the Kurds earlier, but their plight is a prime example of the complexity in that part of the world when it comes to choosing sides. Same thing in regards to the various rebel groups in Syria. Just a difficult area of the world to untangle.
 
50PoundHead said:
I can't remember the commentator (it might have been Nicholas Burns) who said something to the effect that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" doesn't necessarily work in the Mideast. I mentioned the Kurds earlier, but their plight is a prime example of the complexity in that part of the world when it comes to choosing sides. Same thing in regards to the various rebel groups in Syria. Just a difficult area of the world to untangle.
Click to expand...

Better to stay somewhat aloof. They all need us a lot more than we need them.
 
nsacpi said:
We have to deal with the world as it is. But there is a long continuum of options between having a strictly transactional relationship and being chums.

The Arabian peninsula alone has several countries that have issues of various kinds with the Saudis. We have plenty of room to tilt this way and that way as a means of exerting our will and pursuing our interests.

As for MBS himself, Saudi royal politics is opaque and I have no way of knowing if any external influence carries much sway over it. That will sort itself out and I wouldn't presume one outcome or another.

I've been there a few times. It is a very interesting if somewhat creepy place. Still very much a tribal society. And the main tribes from the central region still carry a lot of sway. It was explained to me that it is essential for anyone trying to understand the country to have some sort of diagram showing which tribe the various wives of various princes belong too. The old system of alliance cemented by marriage is alive and well in Saudi Arabia.

The question has been raised as to which horse we should hitch ourselves to. We don't have to commit too strongly to any particular horse and it would not be wise to do so.
Click to expand...

I agree; we have to deal with the world as it is. And that requires an approach to geopolitics steeped in reality.

The Middle East is not this hypothetical arena where a 'continuum of options' exists. There are bad-faith actors, and legitimately bad actors ... and that's about the extent of it. I'd argue, emphatically, that there is not room for tilt or ambiguity. I think this is exemplified by the fact that you don't name a single alternative option on this so-called continuum. Where in contemporary Middle Eastern history have we seen a one foot in, one foot out tact be executed with even a whiff of success?

We're entrenched in Syria (a narrative the outcome of which spills into Europe) and we're in bed with Israel. You can't be in those two situations -- not even mentioning the precariousness of our situation in Iraq -- and straddle a line between the Qataris and the Emaratis and the Saudis.

You always pick a Stallion.
 
Hawk said:
I agree; we have to deal with the world as it is. And that requires an approach to geopolitics steeped in reality.

The Middle East is not this hypothetical arena where a 'continuum of options' exists. There are bad-faith actors, and legitimately bad actors ... and that's about the extent of it. I'd argue, emphatically, that there is not room for tilt or ambiguity. I think this is exemplified by the fact that you don't name a single alternative option on this so-called continuum. Where in contemporary Middle Eastern history have we seen a one foot in, one foot out tact be executed with even a whiff of success?

We're entrenched in Syria (a narrative the outcome of which spills into Europe) and we're in bed with Israel. You can't be in those two situations -- not even mentioning the precariousness of our situation in Iraq -- and straddle a line between the Qataris and the Emaratis and the Saudis.

You always pick a Stallion.
Click to expand...

Actually there is a least bad actor in the region. Sultan Qaboos. That rarest of things: an enlightened despot. But he keeps a low profile as far as geopolitics go.
 
I really dont understand all the hooplah over the journalist. Are we just all going to pretend the world started the day before this happened? What do we think our CIA does and has done. Would it be better if Saudi Arabia killed him with a drone strike? All the bad **** going on in the world and we are focused on one guy. Maybe its just me but this is what I expect from government.
 
Hawk said:
Um, what was the alternative to embracing MBS, the King’s son?

Advocating for free and fair elections - just like ours?

Foreign policy in a vacuum. Gotta love it.
Click to expand...

Accepting MBS as a fact of life is one thing. Embracing him to the extent that we have is quite another (including possibly having our bumbling dauphin giving theirs our intelligence product to effect his little elite roundup).

FWIW, the way their succession has historically worked, being the king’s son doesn’t mean he’s a fait accompli.

So far, he’s stepped on his dick a few too many times for comfort. If it’s not our business who’s running the show there, surely it is our business what we co-sign and underwrite.
 
Hawk said:
I agree; we have to deal with the world as it is. And that requires an approach to geopolitics steeped in reality.

The Middle East is not this hypothetical arena where a 'continuum of options' exists. There are bad-faith actors, and legitimately bad actors ... and that's about the extent of it. I'd argue, emphatically, that there is not room for tilt or ambiguity. I think this is exemplified by the fact that you don't name a single alternative option on this so-called continuum. Where in contemporary Middle Eastern history have we seen a one foot in, one foot out tact be executed with even a whiff of success?

We're entrenched in Syria (a narrative the outcome of which spills into Europe) and we're in bed with Israel. You can't be in those two situations -- not even mentioning the precariousness of our situation in Iraq -- and straddle a line between the Qataris and the Emaratis and the Saudis.

You always pick a Stallion.
Click to expand...

LOL. A stallion. Well, your brand of realpolitik is always entertaining, anyway.
 
Understanding of Middle Eastern politics has a really high buy-in that I've just never been willing to pony up. I also feel like you need quite a bit of cultural knowledge that's nearly impossible to acquire if you aren't a native or long term resident of the region. That leads me to a desire to minimize our presence and interference in the area, and to say little else about it so I don't reveal my ignorance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top