• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[WikiLeak] Europe, Israel, Arabs urged US for action on Iran

kaya'08

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
1,318
Location
British Turk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The vast trove of diplomatic cables released Sunday by the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks shows that U.S. allies in Europe and the Middle East are pushing for tough action against the Iranian nuclear threat.

Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah bin Abd al-Aziz has “repeatedly” urged his U.S. allies to take military action against Tehran’s nuclear program and urged them to “cut off the head of the snake.”

Europe, Israel, Arabs urged action on Iran - Hurriyet Daily News and Economic Review
 
The leaks also showed that the Saudis are funding al-Quaeda. Perhaps we should bomb them both?
 
Why don't they do it then? Not our problem.

Exactly.

Arabs are attempting to use US to do their own dirty work. In doing so, they deflect any of the extremists onto US.

US should tell them to **** off and do it themselves.
 
So you honestly believe Saddam Hussein wasn't funding terrorism?

Selective about your bombing, eh?

i was being sarcastic. but yes, of course i'm selective about my bombing. shouldn't we be?
 
Why don't they do it then? Not our problem.

Because the Saudis lack the military power to do so without incurring prohibitive costs. Not surprisingly, Saudi Arabia has likely concluded that the U.S. is not credibly committed to preventing Iran's becoming a nuclear power and/or lacks the ability to do so. Hence, Saudi policy has shifted toward a new accommodation with Iran, where spheres of influence are being more clearly defined. That some of the emerging terms are not consistent with U.S. regional interests matters less to Saudi Arabia than its quest to safeguard its own vital interests.
 
Because the Saudis lack the military power to do so without incurring prohibitive costs.

Sounds like their problem. Should have thought of that one before relying on a foreign power's military for protection. I mean why do we have to spend so much of our money on our military so that we can then go protect the world so that they do not have to spend so much of their money on their protection? Less we're getting paid, I see no reason to help out.
 
Sounds like their problem. Should have thought of that one before relying on a foreign power's military for protection. I mean why do we have to spend so much of our money on our military so that we can then go protect the world so that they do not have to spend so much of their money on their protection? Less we're getting paid, I see no reason to help out.

Saudi Arabia spends a lot of money on its military. But it does not enjoy gettings its hands dirty. If they were attacked I am sure they could defend themselves.
 
Saudi Arabia spends a lot of money on its military. But it does not enjoy gettings its hands dirty. If they were attacked I am sure they could defend themselves.

Then there's no problem and we don't have to get involved.
 
Then there's no problem and we don't have to get involved.

Agreed. But the problem is that there are too many meatheads in the military who would like to get involved and then there are the blue bloods who cannot help but exploite that.
 
Sounds like their problem. Should have thought of that one before relying on a foreign power's military for protection. I mean why do we have to spend so much of our money on our military so that we can then go protect the world so that they do not have to spend so much of their money on their protection? Less we're getting paid, I see no reason to help out.

The U.S. has strategic allies and interests in the region e.g., access to oil. Abdication or isolation is not a practical policy. Having said that, military strikes are not necessarily the best way to address the problem. Even if the U.S. does not pursue, much less succeed in implementing crippling sanctions on Iran, the U.S. can sell arms to help maintain the region's balance of power and construct an effective deterrence regime were Iran to develop a nuclear waeapons capability.

The problem, to date, is that the U.S. approach has been muddled. Sanctions fall far short of those that would be necessary to impact Iran's strategic petroleum sectors. Even total financial sector sanctions fall far short given that Iran's financial sector is not globally-connected. In addition, there is no evidence, to date--even post-Wikileaks disclosures--that the U.S. has even discussed the outlines of a deterrence approach. Given a combination of factors ranging from past flaws in U.S. military planning to the risks associated with Iranian retaliation, Saudi Arabia has little reason for a great deal of confidence in the viability of a U.S. military approach. Hence, the new Saudi effort aimed at accommodation with Iran is underway. Whether that approach ultimately safeguards Saudi Arabia's vital interests remains to be seen and real risks are involved.

However, even if Saudi Arabia safeguards its own vital interests, that approach may not safeguard vital U.S. interests/strategic allies. Arguably, Iran could remove Saudi Arabia from the equation, and that would complicate efforts by the U.S. to protect its own vital regional interests/strategic allies who have not reached an accommodation with Iran. The balance of power issue would still remain and that has long-term risks for the U.S.
 
The U.S. has strategic allies and interests in the region e.g., access to oil. Abdication or isolation is not a practical policy. Having said that, military strikes are not necessarily the best way to address the problem. Even if the U.S. does not pursue, much less succeed in implementing crippling sanctions on Iran, the U.S. can sell arms to help maintain the region's balance of power and construct an effective deterrence regime were Iran to develop a nuclear waeapons capability.

The problem, to date, is that the U.S. approach has been muddled. Sanctions fall far short of those that would be necessary to impact Iran's strategic petroleum sectors. Even total financial sector sanctions fall far short given that Iran's financial sector is not globally-connected. In addition, there is no evidence, to date--even post-Wikileaks disclosures--that the U.S. has even discussed the outlines of a deterrence approach. Given a combination of factors ranging from past flaws in U.S. military planning to the risks associated with Iranian retaliation, Saudi Arabia has little reason for a great deal of confidence in the viability of a U.S. military approach. Hence, the new Saudi effort aimed at accommodation with Iran is underway. Whether that approach ultimately safeguards Saudi Arabia's vital interests remains to be seen and real risks are involved.

However, even if Saudi Arabia safeguards its own vital interests, that approach may not safeguard vital U.S. interests/strategic allies. Arguably, Iran could remove Saudi Arabia from the equation, and that would complicate efforts by the U.S. to protect its own vital regional interests/strategic allies who have not reached an accommodation with Iran. The balance of power issue would still remain and that has long-term risks for the U.S.
So what do you suggest?
 
So what do you suggest?

For now, I suggest working to replace the relatively mild sanctions currently in place with truly crippling ones and making the Iran issue the central focus of the nation's Mideast diplomatic efforts given the risks/implications involved. The big stakes all lie with Iran. Iran has the ability to dramatically alter the region's balance of power. Such a shift would require expending political capital and some degree of quid pro quo arrangements. At the same time, the U.S. should be drawing up and rigorously testing a military plan (to be pursued only if needed) and developing a credible deterrence regime.
 
The U.S. has strategic allies and interests in the region e.g., access to oil. Abdication or isolation is not a practical policy. Having said that, military strikes are not necessarily the best way to address the problem. Even if the U.S. does not pursue, much less succeed in implementing crippling sanctions on Iran, the U.S. can sell arms to help maintain the region's balance of power and construct an effective deterrence regime were Iran to develop a nuclear waeapons capability.

The problem, to date, is that the U.S. approach has been muddled. Sanctions fall far short of those that would be necessary to impact Iran's strategic petroleum sectors. Even total financial sector sanctions fall far short given that Iran's financial sector is not globally-connected. In addition, there is no evidence, to date--even post-Wikileaks disclosures--that the U.S. has even discussed the outlines of a deterrence approach. Given a combination of factors ranging from past flaws in U.S. military planning to the risks associated with Iranian retaliation, Saudi Arabia has little reason for a great deal of confidence in the viability of a U.S. military approach. Hence, the new Saudi effort aimed at accommodation with Iran is underway. Whether that approach ultimately safeguards Saudi Arabia's vital interests remains to be seen and real risks are involved.

However, even if Saudi Arabia safeguards its own vital interests, that approach may not safeguard vital U.S. interests/strategic allies. Arguably, Iran could remove Saudi Arabia from the equation, and that would complicate efforts by the U.S. to protect its own vital regional interests/strategic allies who have not reached an accommodation with Iran. The balance of power issue would still remain and that has long-term risks for the U.S.

Abdication or isolation is not a policy I endorse. I do not mean we cannot act upon the world stage. However, I would say that they way we currently act upon said stage is too aggressive. Every time someone brings into question the aggressive, interventionist policies we have sought and still seek the first response is "well isolationism doesn't work". It's time to end that tired mantra of intellectual dishonesty and deflect. Many who would call for the reduction in our interventionist policies are not saying that we should totally isolate.

But there needs to be understanding of what is proper action by the US government, what has been afforded to the government as proper tools, and what has been granted to the government by the People through the Constitution. That's the important part. We are not the World's Police. Nor should we act like it. That's to demand that every American pay for the defense of the world, but that's not our responsibility and it's not our problem. As for oil, HA! We can buy oil from whomever owns the land at the time. Sure, we want to monkey around and make it all nice and neat so that a "friendly" government is in charge. But our monkeying around in that playground for decades has not produced anything which in the end was worth the costs and components. People will always sell to us. And if this oil thing is such a concern, then perhaps it really is time we significantly invested in research and development into alternative energies means which could lessen our dependency on foreign oil. Then we don't even have to entertain Saudi Arabia. Screw those authoritative, theocratic jerks anyway.

It's high time the world learns to handle it's own affairs. Quit coming to us, I ain't interested in the crazy y'all are selling. We got our own problems and we should invest into solving those. Not the worries of some theocratic dictatorship in middle of a desert.
 
Apparently Bush wasn't the warmonger the left thought he was.
 
Apparently Bush wasn't the warmonger the left thought he was.

I never thought Bush was a warmonger. I just think that he's an idiot who suffers too greatly from delusions of grandeur.
 
Abdication or isolation is not a policy I endorse. I do not mean we cannot act upon the world stage. However, I would say that they way we currently act upon said stage is too aggressive. Every time someone brings into question the aggressive, interventionist policies we have sought and still seek the first response is "well isolationism doesn't work". It's time to end that tired mantra of intellectual dishonesty and deflect. Many who would call for the reduction in our interventionist policies are not saying that we should totally isolate.

But there needs to be understanding of what is proper action by the US government, what has been afforded to the government as proper tools, and what has been granted to the government by the People through the Constitution. That's the important part. We are not the World's Police. Nor should we act like it. That's to demand that every American pay for the defense of the world, but that's not our responsibility and it's not our problem. As for oil, HA! We can buy oil from whomever owns the land at the time. Sure, we want to monkey around and make it all nice and neat so that a "friendly" government is in charge. But our monkeying around in that playground for decades has not produced anything which in the end was worth the costs and components. People will always sell to us. And if this oil thing is such a concern, then perhaps it really is time we significantly invested in research and development into alternative energies means which could lessen our dependency on foreign oil. Then we don't even have to entertain Saudi Arabia. Screw those authoritative, theocratic jerks anyway.

It's high time the world learns to handle it's own affairs. Quit coming to us, I ain't interested in the crazy y'all are selling. We got our own problems and we should invest into solving those. Not the worries of some theocratic dictatorship in middle of a desert.

For once I'm going to agree with you for the most part. What Don says is true if we continue the course, but what you said rings true given the foreign policy we SHOULD have. Unfortunately, we can't change gears that quickly, therefore it would have to be done in phases over several presidencial terms. The left needs to back off of their opposition to oil refinery construction and nuclear power construction. R&D should continue on energy alternatives as much as the market can bear. Nevertheless we'll have to continue the Carter Doctrine for the time being until we are more self-sufficent. If we doubled our refining capacity we could likely become a net exporter of refined petroleum products. Current laws will have to change to encourage businesses in these areas, and the left will need to accept the above if it wants to achieves its environmental goals. The left cannot continue demanding unmarketable change to achieves its objectives.
 
For now, I suggest working to replace the relatively mild sanctions currently in place with truly crippling ones and making the Iran issue the central focus of the nation's Mideast diplomatic efforts given the risks/implications involved. The big stakes all lie with Iran. Iran has the ability to dramatically alter the region's balance of power. Such a shift would require expending political capital and some degree of quid pro quo arrangements. At the same time, the U.S. should be drawing up and rigorously testing a military plan (to be pursued only if needed) and developing a credible deterrence regime.

China will prevent the UNSC from imposing harsh sanctions against Iran. So that's not an answer.

America doesn't have the ability to contain Iran. The American peoples are no longer capable of waging generational long twilight struggles.

Time to come home.
 
China will prevent the UNSC from imposing harsh sanctions against Iran. So that's not an answer.

That's why there needs to be a quid pro quo. The U.S. will have to accommodate China's need for energy, even sacrificing some of its own use of oil so that China has sufficient access during any cut-off of Iran's ability to sell oil on the world market. To date, the U.S. seems to be riding largely idealistic assumptions that every country, including China, has a largely similar vested interest in denying Iran the capacity to develop nuclear weapons. That assumption is incorrect. Until China's needs are addressed, China understandably cannot be expected to sign onto the type of sanctions that would hurt it far more than they would hurt various other countries.

America doesn't have the ability to contain Iran.

By itself, the U.S. cannot "contain" Iran. Working on a multilateral basis with the region's other powers, the U.S. would be in a stronger position to reduce the risk of Iran's attaining a nuclear weapons capability or, failing that, establishing a sufficient deterrence regime to prevent Iran from using such a capability to undermine the region's balance of power.
 
"That's why there needs to be a quid pro quo. The U.S. will have to accommodate China's need for energy, even sacrificing some of its own use of oil so that China has sufficient access during any cut-off of Iran's ability to sell oil on the world market. To date, the U.S. seems to be riding largely idealistic assumptions that every country, including China, has a largely similar vested interest in denying Iran the capacity to develop nuclear weapons. That assumption is incorrect. Until China's needs are addressed, China understandably cannot be expected to sign onto the type of sanctions that would hurt it far more than they would hurt various other countries."

You may be right. However, imo, the Chinese will never cooperate voluntarily in terminating DPRK production of nuclear weapons, and proliferation of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology. China doesn't feel that the current international system is legitimate. China believes it can game the international legal, political and economic systems because no one has stopped them. They have paid no price. The Chinese are happy to see America expend it's energy in futile causes.

The only way to get China to do what America wants is to threaten Chinese self-interest in the exact same way they have done to America. There are ways to do this which are really low cost if America is willing to endure unhappy talk from the Chinese.

Change the nature of reality for the Chinese. Since the Chinese have no problem with nuclear proliferation they should have no problem with Vietnam, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan becoming nuclear weapons states. We live in interesting times.
 
"By itself, the U.S. cannot "contain" Iran. Working on a multilateral basis with the region's other powers, the U.S. would be in a stronger position to reduce the risk of Iran's attaining a nuclear weapons capability or, failing that, establishing a sufficient deterrence regime to prevent Iran from using such a capability to undermine the region's balance of power."

This generation of Americans is not capable of punching its way out of a paper bag. It is best if such people avoid conflict.
 
Back
Top Bottom