Elizabeth Dickinson, Time: Why the Gulf States No Longer Trust America
Arab Gulf leaders meeting with President Barack Obama at Camp David this week are expected to seek big security guarantees from the United States. Some states want new, advanced weaponry such as the F-35 fighter jet and Gulf diplomats in Washington said they wanted a formal defense treaty with the United States.
For its part, the Obama Administration has said the Camp David summit will focus on defense cooperation on ballistic missile defense, cyber warfare, and terrorism. Washington is also expected to argue that a negotiated nuclear deal with Iran won’t allow that country to secure atomic weapons.
But as the leaders sit down at Camp David, Gulf countries’ concerns over Iran are more than just nuclear weapons.
WNU Editor: There has been differences between the U.S. and its Gulf allies before .... but trust was never an issue. This time around the impression is different .... no one is on the "same page", no one is being consulted, and more importantly there is no desire to sit down and coordinate everyone's actions. What we have is the following .... Saudi Arabia tells the U.S. that they are bombing Yemen (after the fact), the U.S. engages in talks to have a nuclear agreement with Iran and tells the Gulf States to not worry (after the fact), and when it comes to Syria/Iraq .... abundant disagreement and no unity on what to do next is crystal clear .... more so at today's Camp David summit where the top Arab leaders have decided not to show up.
12 comments:
In their eyes U.S.' schizophrenic foreign policy has hit a crescendo of dissonance under the stewardship of O. Uncertainty is the theme of the relationship between the U.S. and the Gulf states - the Arabs lack any ability to predict / anticipate actions by the White House. The Arabs do not like surprises, especially ones that could impact the control of their people. The relationship is far from ruined - I just see them sitting on the sidelines until the next admin takes the reigns - win-win for them once Hillary or bush takes the office.
"Uncertainty" .... that is the word that I was looking for when I was making my comment. I agree with your point of Nikant.
WNU Editor,
It's not really the Obama Administration that has "moved". The Iraq War and the Arab Spring(s), have caused the Saudi's and GCC to "double down" on repression at home, and extremist jihadi's attacking the Sectarian/Democracies next door.
The messes from this, have cause the US to reluctantly support some of their actions, disown some of their actions, and try to "moderate" and "reassure" the petty little Kings who fear that their time is over and the executioner is coming.
Jay,
I think it should be noted that "doubling down on repression" is actually growth in public welfare dollars and elevated levels of scrutiny by the Arabs respective intelligence/security apparatus. I don't know what nationality you are but I'd wager you that whoever your petty little kings are, they too are pulling the same strings - probably in more subtle and sinister ways.
The support of MusBros, deposal of Gadaffi, Yemen as a 'model' for counter-terrorism strategy and the grand nuclear deal have certainly added to the complexity brought on by the invasion. It would be ignorant to say that the administrations actions in just these hand full of examples haven't contributed to the compounding of problems in the region.
No wonder there is a trust issue...
http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/watch-obamas-embarrassing-mistake-as-he-greets-saudi-princes/article/2564508
Nikant Sanue
Jay is apparently Canadian. He posts under his real name. He has a website, which is good start, but he must be too busy working or on the keyboard, so it sucks.
The site look glossy, but it does not show much of any product.
I do believe there is a high degree of probability that Jay is right. The time of the "petty little kings" is likely to be over very soon. My prediction is the new bosses will most likely be worse than the old one in its treatment of the people or the very best scenario, which is unlikely, just as bad while not worse. In other words, the plight of the masses may get worse but is unlikely to improve under the new leadership.
Back in January 2008 I patiently explained to family and friends that we did not need to concern ourselves with a nuclear armed Iran. Israel acting in concert with the Gulf Arab states would act in concert to take out the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
They would do this before the Americans ever knew what happened and would be back home before the Americans ever figured out. Frankly I was rather looking forward to watching the "deer in the headlights" look on the faces of American leaders as they tried to explain this situation to microphones of the media.
Knowing the Americans lack the piloting skills, the intelligence services to properly to identify the targets, the military leadership, and the fact that the Americans are infiltrated with Iranian operatives at the highest levels of who would instantly alert the Iranian government there is no benefit in informing the Americans of this and any attempt to do so would only have negative utility and assuming the American government at this time especially the Bush Administration at that time would understand the situation and would not want to be informed.
As for Israel, being a small country surrounded by enemies it is understandable why they would not have been able to take a lead role in this. As for the Gulf Arab states, they do not have such a situation. As such, I think the lack of "trust" at least among some Americans goes both ways. Many of us expected them to come through for their "ally."
When I think of Saudi Arabia, I think of the following. 1.) 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. 2.)None of these so called Gulf Allies rushed to our defense either then or in Iraq. 3.)Saudi Arabia's attempt to collapse oil prices to drive American oil producers out of business.
In short, the Gulf allies are not allies but are enemies of the worst kind. If there's a silver lining the new leaders, once the so called petty kings are deposed are likely to be less subtle even though they will be more dangerous. Of course this assumes the United States actually survives long enough to see this change. God willing it will.
Nikant,
Very respectfully I'm not sure where you are from. You mention Hillary or Bush as the next President. If you were from America or, if you are from America and don't live in a leftist bubble, you would understand that Bush's brother is the most hated man in the history of the Republic.
As such, Bush has no chance at all of being elected. Why is he even running? I suspect comedy relief, distraction, or most likely a case of one being to stupid to recognize they are stupid.
As for Hilary, this is unlikely as to many scandals and not enough media support. I'd look for someone such as Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders to be the next president. Rand Paul would be a dark horse but I wouldn't expect a left of center country such as America to support someone like this.
While most Americans are not members of unions, most would be if they were available and they love the unions. As such, right now I'd expect the next president to be Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. Certainly not Jeb.
B. Poster,
That's not how American Politics work. Warren isn't running, and the best Saunders can hope for, is to push Hillary and the other cantidates left, rather than the usual Dem position of running Right.
Most American voters are Low Information Voters, concerned more with personality, rather than Policy.
About 1/3 of American Voters are Party Ticket voters, so the Republican Party can run an actual Elephant from the " right" Zoo, ( Dallas, Memphis, Atlanta, but not San Francisco of New York) and the Democrats can run any petting zoo Donkey, even from the Creationist Museum, and they will get their share of the votes.
Right now, the race is Hillary vs. Jeb, but as the primaries progress, the race might change, ( Miller might gather some steam,) but then again, they might not.
And of course, the platforms that cantidates run on, (Mr. Hope and Change), has no bearings on what they will do during their Presidency.
Jay,
Please understand I mean you no disrespect. You are Canadian. At least I think you are. As such, you have no real clue how American politics actually work. Frankly, it is somewhat entertaining at times how many arm chair experts there are on American politics who are not from here.
Of course among those who are from here or even those who aren't many of them have contacts within left wing bubbles and, as such, have no clue how real world Americans think or what motivates them.
In actuality, when it comes to voting in national elections only about 1% of Americans or less are actually beholden to a particular party. The general American position is left of center. As such, Democrats do NOT run to the right unless we buy into the media nonsense who do not think they are far left enough.
Right now Warren isn't running. I'd expect that to change. I think I can agree with you in the sense that many Americans are "low information" voters. We might disagree on the result of this. Many Americans blindly support the leftist candidate who promises them the most support from the government. The reason this is because most Americans are WAY to busy trying to take care of their families.
With all due respect you have no idea how American politics really work. Bottom line: Jeb is not getting nominated for anything. While unlikely, Hilary might get nominated. The Democrat nominee is likely to be either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren who will run.
The best bet to beat either of these candidates for the Republicans would be Rand Paul even then it's unlikely as he's not left wing enough for a majority of American voters.
At this point, the Democrats could probably run any candidate against the Republicans and win. Given the situation and Hilary's unfavorable ratings, at this point, I'd expect them to run either Warren or Sanders. As for Bush, he will NOT get the nomination. To do so would be suicide for the Republicans.
Of course at this point Jeb is likely contributing his own family funds to his campaign. As such, they can't tell him to TAKE A HIKE!! As for Jeb, "to stupid to understand he is stupid" comes to mind. As such, Jeb does not get the nomination. If I'm wrong, I will come here and admit it.
B. Poster,
first off, politically involved Canadians watch US elections closer than they watch Canadian Elections.
It affects trade, foreign affairs, defense, currency, investment , just to name a few,
The standard Canadian reference, is we are a mouse, living next to an elephant.
As an example, TPP. if the US goes for TPP there is no stopping TPP in Canada.
As another reference, since the "merger" between Reform and the PC, if we want to know the "next" plays that the HarperCons will pull in the next election, we need to watch what the Republican's "pull" in the US Election, as the exact same Carpetbaggers that advise the Relublican Cantidate, will be advising the HarperCons.
Second, I have lived and worked in the US, in High Tech Manufacturing, off and on for 35 years, been "watching" US elections for 57 years. I've lived and worked in Milwaukee, Boston, Annapolis, Wood's Hole, Atlanta, Huston, Dallas, Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Santa Clara, Coranado, San Franciso, Bremerton and Red Bell, and "Americans" are not left of center.
Third, I am " active" on a lot of American political sites, such as DKos.
Warren ain't running, and while Bernie raised $2.5 million in 2 days, it's the Democratic Party delegates who decide who runs, not the Democratic Party Members, and right now Hillary has a massive lead in delegate polling.
All Rand will ever do is if he runs 3rd Party, is pull some Republican votes.
Jay,
Very respectfully, if so called politically informed Canadians are relying on the same sources you seem to be relying on, they are not nearly as informed as they think they are. I'd also think the affect goes both ways. What happens in Canada is going to affect the US as well.
Such misunderstandings could conceivably lead to grievous errors as bad policies toward America could be put into place and Americans being left of center politically may misread some things.
High tech manufacturing will only give you limited exposure to the majority of Americans.
While Warren is not running now, she will jump in later. She may have to be coaxed into it by the Democrat party elite in order to save the electoral prospects of the Democrats. This would especially be the case if Mr. Sanders proves unelectable. Both of these people may be to far left even for left of center politically America which makes up the vast majority of Americans.
Finally, not sure about your reference to TPP. Just because America might go for such doesn't mean Canada would or should. Countries far less powerful or influential on America successfully oppose America all the time. If Canada goes for TPP and the voting Canadian public doesn't like it, they can blame it on America. I'm pretty sure such strategies have been used quite effectively by many governments around the world.
Post a Comment