Comment by churchill | Hacker News Reader

Comment by churchill | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I always try to make sense of America's Middle East policy in a way that doesn't veer into antisemitic conspiracy theorist thinking and it just doesn't compute. At all.

For instance, apart from ups and downs here and there, the Arab petro-states have been reliable US allies. Support military actions in the region, notify Western powers of their unruly citizens getting chummy with terrorists, etc. For instance, years before 9/11, Saudi Arabia expelled Bin Laden, voided his citizenship, and notified the US & allies, IIRC.

They have rivers of oil & gas - a cheap, superabundant energy source.

They buy hundreds of billions worth of US weapons. Spend hundreds of billions on Western contractors. Israel, by contrast, buys US weapons with US money. Basically, the US gives it to them for free.

Yet, the US won't even sell their Arab allies top-end stuff. In fact, Congress has a law on the books guaranteeing Israel a Qualitative Military Edge, QME. So, America can't sell the Arabs - some of their best allies - F35s or any of the cool toys, just because Israel says so.

Now, America also seems comfortable with Israel bombing their best allies, destabilizing their entire region, offending the region's Muslim majority, which weakens the legitimacy of all their royal houses.

For what? The chump change AIPAC offers?

What do you think these countries will do when China reaches out and offers them the new J35 stealth fighter? Egypt, which collects lots of US cash to leave Israel alone, is currently trying it out, as I'm sure, many of the other Arab states are.

China's rapid rise means that they can now offer these countries weapons that match top-end Western systems 90-95%, at 30-40% of the cost. And China is a more logical, reliable geopolitical player.

I just don't know. Is this erosion of American power worth it for whatever Israel is offering?

The Arab petrostates and their citizens regularly support all kinds of Sunni terrorist organizations. During the Syrian Civil War, it was a common knowledge that certain islamist groups were funded by certain states, and the states were competing with each other in this regard on the battlefield.

I would also argue that the regimes in these countries are not considered particularly stable and they don't want to end up with Iran situation again.

> The Arab petrostates and their citizens regularly support all kinds of Sunni terrorist organizations.

The US supports all kinds of Sunni terrorist organizations.

> During the Syrian Civil War, it was a common knowledge that certain islamist groups were funded by certain states, and the states were competing with each other in this regard on the battlefield.

This is the US again. Not only that, but proud of it. We put Jalani in a suit and have Petreus give him a Barbara Walters style celebrity interview. The US poured more money into using Al Quaeda to topple the secular regime and turn it into an Islamic state than anyone else. If you believe Hillary Clinton's leaked email, we've been funding them since at least 2012.

You were in such a haste to reply that you didn't address any point I raised.

>The Arab petrostates and their citizens regularly support all kinds of Sunni terrorist organizations. During the Syrian Civil War, it was a common knowledge that certain islamist groups were funded by certain states, and the states were competing with each other in this regard on the battlefield.

With America's implicit consent, at least. The Washington consensus on Syria was that Assad had to go, even if it was extreme Islamist that did the work on the ground. State Dept. openly admitted in emails that al-Qaeda in Syria was an asset since they were fighting & weakening Assad's regime. And it worked! HTS, Julani's faction that ousted Assad & runs Syria today was an al-Qaeda-aligned group. They gained territory & moderated & everyone realizes letting them run the country is better.

>I would also argue that the regimes in these countries are not considered particularly stable and they don't want to end up with Iran situation again.

So, your way of dealing with these countries is to weaken their legitimacy by showing them up as spineless cowards that can't stand up to Israel, despite their sucking up to America?

And despite the Western fictions, most countries of the Arab Gulf are extremely stable. The population is small enough to be controlled. Citizens are heavily subsidized. Power is apportioned/maintained through tribal allegiances that have lasted longer than many Western countries, in some cases. They're going nowhere.

Not mentioning Iran in all of this looks more like a myopic view of things.

You were in such a haste to share our opinion that you didn't address any point I made.

If you want to weaken Iran, you need to empower the Arab states since the Sunni-Shia split is one of their points of contention. Instead, America lets Israel bomb them and proves Iran's point that America & Israel are unreliable allies at best, or enemies of Muslims at worst.

Are you a bot? Why respond to two comments with nearly exactly the same introductory paragraphs…

Because it's a relevant question to ask? Both replies addressed nothing I said and were in a haste to say what's on their mind vs. process what I wrote.

> Is this erosion of American power worth it for whatever Israel is offering?

I have a hypothesis that empires fall when the rulers mistake their rule for the natural order of things.

This mistaken worldview has the ruling classes fighting each other for control over the empire, while blinding them to the rise of other powers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com