To keep the peace the western coalitions have to pick someone. And who's been the better ally for peace, Saudi or Iran? It's fine to say Saudi is corrupt and not a good actor, but stepping away from them would mean widespread war in the ME.
There are political differences to be expected, but let me try to explain why the USA is willing to rub elbows with the Saudis and not with Iran. My credentials are this: I spent 6 months working on strategy in the CENTCOM AOR bitching about every single country in the Persian/Arabian Gulf every single day. The choice is one of picking the lesser of two evils. The USA has a great interest in keeping and increasing its geopolitical influence in the Middle East (Israel is not included in this region even though we have to plan for their actions). The two main regional powers in the Middle East are Saudi Arabia and Iran. We used to be friendly with both countries back in the 1970s but Iran had a revolution and the Ayatollah didn't want anything to do with us, and it remains that way today. Although the current President of Iran (Rouhani) has mentioned that he would like to improve relations with the USA, he is not the boss regardless of how many people voted for him; the Ayatollah is the Supreme Leader and he still openly calls for the death of Israel and the USA. So we obviously can't be friends with Iran. That leaves us with Saudi Arabia, and while they also sponsor terrorism, they are all we have left. We overlook their actions, and in exchange we are allowed to keep a significant military force there, which props up their government and provides them with a pretty big stick when negotiating with the smaller countries in the region (the only other stick they really have is their gargantuan oil production). So our PATRIOT batteries protect the family of Saud from Iran, and we get to have a little say in their goings on. It's as simple as that. Just about everybody we deal with is a piece of scum that would like to see the USA brought down a peg, but Saudi Arabia doesn't do it openly and they depend on our money and protection, so we get along a little better than them. Iran openly calls for our destruction. The last several US presidents, both Republican and Democrat have decided that it's better for us to support Saudi Arabia than not have any influence in the Middle East at all. The only other option is to withdraw our forces (without Saudi Arabia's cooperation we would probably lose our basing agreements with all the other countries in the region) and have no say whatsoever and watch as the Middle East goes in a direction that isn't beneficial to the USA in the slightest.
--And to get back to the topic of the parent post, yeah, this is exactly what the NSA is supposed to do. It is supposed to do two things: Secure the information of the USA and its citizens, and to undermine the security of everything else. A lot of US citizens were upset when they found out that the NSA vacuum had gotten their information as well, and rightfully so. But the NSA is still primarily focused on targeting external entities, and although those entities are well within their rights to complain, don't expect the NSA to stop just because someone didn't like it. Regardless of what a federal judge says about collecting on US citizens, no judge will EVER tell the NSA to stop its clandestine activities on foreign networks.
People in Western nations might want to remember that Iran was an ally of the U.S. and I think other Western states before the 1979 revolution.
I'm not sure why the Western countries would prefer Saudi Arabia over Iran at this point, except that Saudi Arabia is more willing to work with the West. Both promote extremist ideologies.
Iran is supporting Assad's mass killing of people in Syria, but I think that in the long run they are no different than the Saudis (and many in the West) in this respect; the Saudis would do the same if one of their major allies was at risk.
I'm no fan of Saudi Arabia, particularly their global proselytizing of radical Islam and internal repression of opposing thought, but they're not comparable with Iran. Iran directly arms and funds terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. They funded terrorists in Iraq with the sole purpose of killing as many American troops as possible and undermining the new Iraqi government. They are allies of Al-Qaeda and provided material support to their operations, including US embassy bombings and 9/11. They've also continued to support the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. Even though they are not shy about their imperial intentions in the Middle East, the West seems to be sticking its head in the sand. The risk of an Iranian-dominated Middle East should not be under-estimated. They already have their hands on Syrian, Lebanese, Yemeni, and Iraqi politics. They exert their influence by extortion. If you don't bend to their will, Revolutionary Guard-backed insurgents blow you up.
My feeling is that Iran is a far better natural ally of the United States than Saudi Arabia. The average Iranian is probably far more amenable to western liberal values than the average person from Saudi Arabia.
I can't help thinking that if the US were forced at ICBM-point to choose sides in the Saudi Arabia vs. Iran international rivalry, Iran would be the better choice, even after all the terrible history between Iran and the US.
It's like fighting Christianity's Devil by making a blood pact with Ialchtaluogoloth, Inscrutable Lord of the Slime Pits From Beyond the Dead Stars. At least Lucifer can appreciate a finely tailored suit.
If Saudi Arabia didn't have light, sweet oil reserves and control of the Hajj, they wouldn't have much of anything at all.
I have the same impression. Unfortunately the Saudis have the oil and that makes them valuable allies. Whereas Iran is basically at war with Israel, which means the US will never be able to be in good terms with them.
I’m American and that’s my perspective. I can’t be the only one. I never even understood why Iran and the US were at odds. Seems entirely based on politics/elites. From what I see, Iranians would be my first pick as allies in the region. We certainly chose poorly with Saudi Arabia.
When the US, after decades of engagement, leaves the Middle East (if they are foolish enough to do so) they'll be leaving a political power vacuum of Shai-majority citizens for Iran to control by proxy - which doesn't support the US ally of Israel. That, and the Taliban, the Sunni wahabists schools that enabled 9/11, are protected by the Saudis, which the US has been getting cosy with for a while. It could be argued that being friendly with Saudi Arabia by diplomatic means has been more useful in quashing the fundamentalist wahabi jahadist threat, than has been any fighting in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
You can't question our alliance with Saudi Arabia without questioning our alliance with Israel. Well, you can, but the former flows from the latter. If we're going to be allies with Israel, then Iran is our enemy. If Iran is our enemy, then Saudi Arabia is our friend. We've come up with all sorts of other rationalizations over the years, but that is the core of it.
I've begun to see the faintest whiffs of questioning the Saudi alliance among the foreign policy establishment, but I suspect our deeply pro-Israel sentiments will prevent anything from changing for a long time.
Saudi Arabia has a much larger budget to spend on arms deals (the real US interest) and allying with Iran would anger Israel who the US considers an important ally (for tech, geopolitical, military, and electoral college reasons).
I'm not sure friendly is a word I would use to describe Iran, and Saudi Arabia would exist with or without American support. The US-Saudi alliance is rocky at best, and only exists because the Saudis have oil, and largely persists because Saudi hates Iran, which is important to the US because of their strong alliance to Israel. You have to choose sides in the Middle East, and the US chose Israel. Everything else flows from there.
The US is an enabler of Saudi nonsense, but the Saudi state is not being propped up with American resources. They would be powerful in the region regardless of American support.
I'm with you so far, but let's not forget that Pakistan is/was the primary sponsor of the Talibans, and that the Saudis, Bahrain, Iran... all play the game of thrones. It's not an all-western show.
I'm also not really sure that I'd paint 1985-era Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Death-To-America Iran as markedly better than they are now. The region has historically been ruled by despots. Western intervention has occasionally (by design or accident) made things worse, but the West has the same responsibility in the rise to power of noted humanitarian Khomeiny as France's position during the negotiation of the Treaty of Versailles.
The thing is to use the Saudis to keep Iran in check is like using the devil to keep a daemon in check. Iran (as bad it may be) is a much freer society than Saudi Arabia, and support for terrorism can't be an argument either because Saudi Arabia is a primary supporter of Islamic terrorism in the world. Moreover, the demonisation of Iran together with the support for Saudi Arabia has likely strengthened the hardliners in Iran and made the region much less stable.
Saudi Arabia is an unfortunate alliance as a pawn in the larger game against the more severe problems that China, Russia, and Iran pose, along with ensuring energy stability until we have better options. In a better world, we would never be friends with a dictatorship like that and their ideals. It's the less bad option, unfortunately. Snubbing all countries with problematic governments like Turkey, Saudi, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Vietnam, etc. will quickly land you in a tougher situation to accomplish better ideals.
If only we can get Iran and Israel to play ball because from everything I've read most of the trouble is between Saudi Arabia and Iran trying to get a friendly govt in Iraq.
reply