What can go wrong? The Saudis and the Israelis cook up a deal to further shield Israel from scrutiny and criticism and the Saudis begin to do what the Iranians have been doing for years...build nuclear weapons under the guise of energy production. And, of course, there is no light shining on the Israelis nuclear weapons cache.
And thankfully, the 20 Senators rightfully call them out on the abandonment of the Palestinians.
There are so many reasons why this a bad deal....and for the life of me, I can't think of one reason why we would ever put ourselves in the position of blessing it. What's in it for us?
Great question! Reducing tensions between Middle East states is a reasonable goal. So is increasing Israel’s security. But at what price? This is why so many of us — and almost half of the Senate Democratic Caucus — object to the terms of the deal. It is a double-barreled threat: increasing the risks of nuclear proliferation and decreasing the possibility of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Oh, and possibly dragging the US into another war.
I lived in the Middle East for 3 years as a child. When I was in the Navy I was involved in a program to help them create their own Navy. I was appalled how they treated their sailors. This resulted in an investigation by SecDef on their behavior and the US turning a blind eye. Then much later, to my lasting shame, I was sent there by the defense contractor for whom I worked. While many individual Saudi's were very nice, I encountered rampant misogyny, religious police, and a omnipresent secret police presence. Not a good place. I wish we never did business there. But management was always happy to take their money. Very disappointing.
You make a powerful case for caution before the US deepens our relationship with this kingdom. As the senators say: "A high degree of proof would be required to show that a binding defense treaty with Saudi Arabia – an authoritarian regime which regularly undermines U.S. interests in the region, has a deeply concerning human rights record, and has pursued an aggressive and reckless foreign policy agenda – aligns with U.S. interests, especially if such a commitment requires the U.S. to deploy substantial new permanent resources to the region."
It is the chaos caused by authoritarian factions who have no policy agenda beyond a grab for power and wealth. My friend David Rothkopf just wrote a wonderful description of this. He calls them the "anarchy-moron" faction of the GOP. Take a look: https://www.thedailybeast.com/a-broken-congress-is-what-maga-always-wanted
Here is his summary: "For alienated voters who feel like life hasn’t gone their way and who don’t like the trends they see, lashing out at our system and at those in power is cathartic. More importantly, for the donor class who have done quite well with the system we’ve got and whose main goals are to a.) keep the money they’ve made and b.) make more money—tearing down the government serves their purposes.
"The less government, the lower the taxes. And the smaller the government, the fewer the regulatory and enforcement mechanisms there will be to cut into their corporate bottom lines or force them to play by legal rules."
Let those 7th Century camel fornicators eat their oil. We no longer need the Saudi gas station. Cut them off - they haven't been our friends for a looooooonnnnnggggg time.
I agree. Biden is pursuing a policy that might have made some geopolitical sense 20 or 30 years ago but not now. By 2050, we will not care about protecting Saudi oil. Or anybody's oil.
What can go wrong? The Saudis and the Israelis cook up a deal to further shield Israel from scrutiny and criticism and the Saudis begin to do what the Iranians have been doing for years...build nuclear weapons under the guise of energy production. And, of course, there is no light shining on the Israelis nuclear weapons cache.
And thankfully, the 20 Senators rightfully call them out on the abandonment of the Palestinians.
There are so many reasons why this a bad deal....and for the life of me, I can't think of one reason why we would ever put ourselves in the position of blessing it. What's in it for us?
Great question! Reducing tensions between Middle East states is a reasonable goal. So is increasing Israel’s security. But at what price? This is why so many of us — and almost half of the Senate Democratic Caucus — object to the terms of the deal. It is a double-barreled threat: increasing the risks of nuclear proliferation and decreasing the possibility of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Oh, and possibly dragging the US into another war.
I lived in the Middle East for 3 years as a child. When I was in the Navy I was involved in a program to help them create their own Navy. I was appalled how they treated their sailors. This resulted in an investigation by SecDef on their behavior and the US turning a blind eye. Then much later, to my lasting shame, I was sent there by the defense contractor for whom I worked. While many individual Saudi's were very nice, I encountered rampant misogyny, religious police, and a omnipresent secret police presence. Not a good place. I wish we never did business there. But management was always happy to take their money. Very disappointing.
You make a powerful case for caution before the US deepens our relationship with this kingdom. As the senators say: "A high degree of proof would be required to show that a binding defense treaty with Saudi Arabia – an authoritarian regime which regularly undermines U.S. interests in the region, has a deeply concerning human rights record, and has pursued an aggressive and reckless foreign policy agenda – aligns with U.S. interests, especially if such a commitment requires the U.S. to deploy substantial new permanent resources to the region."
What is authoritarian anarchy?
It is the chaos caused by authoritarian factions who have no policy agenda beyond a grab for power and wealth. My friend David Rothkopf just wrote a wonderful description of this. He calls them the "anarchy-moron" faction of the GOP. Take a look: https://www.thedailybeast.com/a-broken-congress-is-what-maga-always-wanted
Here is his summary: "For alienated voters who feel like life hasn’t gone their way and who don’t like the trends they see, lashing out at our system and at those in power is cathartic. More importantly, for the donor class who have done quite well with the system we’ve got and whose main goals are to a.) keep the money they’ve made and b.) make more money—tearing down the government serves their purposes.
"The less government, the lower the taxes. And the smaller the government, the fewer the regulatory and enforcement mechanisms there will be to cut into their corporate bottom lines or force them to play by legal rules."
Let those 7th Century camel fornicators eat their oil. We no longer need the Saudi gas station. Cut them off - they haven't been our friends for a looooooonnnnnggggg time.
I agree. Biden is pursuing a policy that might have made some geopolitical sense 20 or 30 years ago but not now. By 2050, we will not care about protecting Saudi oil. Or anybody's oil.