• 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!

The Middle East Isn’t Worth It Anymore

jpn

jpn

Retired Navy Commander
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
15,570
Reaction score
16,490
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I gotta confess, I don't subscribe to the WSJ, which carried this article. But I got snippets from it via Kevin Drum. He synopsized it thus:

Previously, presidents of both parties shared a broad understanding of U.S. interests in the region, including a consensus that those interests were vital to the country—worth putting American lives and resources on the line to forge peace and, when necessary, wage war.

Today, however, with U.S. troops still in harm’s way in Iraq and Afghanistan and tensions high over Iran, Americans remain war-weary. Yet we seem incapable of mustering a consensus or pursuing a consistent policy in the Middle East. And there’s a good reason for that, one that’s been hard for many in the American foreign-policy establishment, including me, to accept: Few vital interests of the U.S. continue to be at stake in the Middle East. The challenge now, both politically and diplomatically, is to draw the necessary conclusions from that stark fact.

….In the past, the U.S. has had two clear priorities in the Middle East: to keep Gulf oil flowing at reasonable prices and to ensure Israel’s survival. But the U.S. economy no longer relies on imported petroleum….As for Israel, it is still very much in America’s national interest to support the security of the Jewish state, but its survival is no longer in question.

….We cannot afford to turn our backs on the Middle East….Yet after the sacrifice of so many American lives, the waste of so much energy and money in quixotic efforts that ended up doing more harm than good, it is time for the U.S. to find a way to escape the costly, demoralizing cycle of crusades and retreats. We need a sustainable Middle East strategy based on a more realistic assessment of our interests. It is time to eschew never-ending wars and grandiose objectives—like pushing Iran out of Syria, overthrowing Iran’s ayatollahs or resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—in favor of more limited goals that can be achieved with more modest means.
Click to expand...

The author, Martin Indyk, has been deeply involved in the Middle East for decades, serving roles under both Presidents Clinton and Obama. He was our ambassador to Israel twice. Indyk thinks we should continue to be diplomatically involved in the Middle East, and also that there are occasionally American interests strong enough to require military action. But they are few and far between. There is hardly anything left in the Middle East that’s worth going to war for.

The US doesn't need Middle East oil anymore, although conflict there could mean a global spike in prices. But let other nations deal with that.
 
Last edited:
jpn said:
I gotta confess, I don't subscribe to the WSJ, which carried this article. But I got snippets from it via Kevin Drum. He synopsized it thus:



The author, Martin Indyk, has been deeply involved in the Middle East for decades, serving roles under both Presidents Clinton and Obama. He was our ambassador to Israel twice. Indyk thinks we should continue to be diplomatically involved in the Middle East, and also that there are occasionally American interests strong enough to require military action. But they are few and far between. There is hardly anything left in the Middle East that’s worth going to war for.

The US doesn't need Middle East oil anymore, although conflict there could mean a global spike in prices. But let other nations deal with that.
Click to expand...

Thanks to Fracking, that is correct. It would be of interest to me if we could get any of our forum's lefter-leaning folks to agree that this industry is what can help them achieve their foreign policy preferences, and that harming the first harms the latter.

Or, for that matter, if any Democrat Presidential candidates are willing to admit that. I rather doubt that, however, as it would be a bit of an unforced error; forcing their base to confront an inconvenient reality.



Meantime, Mr Indyk has a relatively recent example to draw on: The U.S. followed his current advice back in 2012, and pulled out of Iraq. How'd that work out? Everything been Hunky Dory over there since?
 
Oil might have a bit to do with it. Rich countries can always buy oil when they need to, as they are buying oil right now.

Mostly it's that if you let those countries fall into chaos, it will be much more of a problem.

And Israel is threatened.

Prior to 1945 about 100k Jews immigrated to Palestine. The British who controlled Palestine at the time were fine with that.

There were already tensions between the richer Jews and the poor Palestinians.

1945, millions of Jewish refugees washed up on Palestinian shores. There were enough Jews to make a country now.

1948 a great war was fought between the Palestinians and their allies, the Arabs, and Israel. Israel won.

Israel would go on to win more wars.

Arabs really hate Israel, Iranians too.

Israel is at the center of the whole Middle East problem.
 
swing_voter said:
Oil might have a bit to do with it. Rich countries can always buy oil when they need to, as they are buying oil right now.

Mostly it's that if you let those countries fall into chaos, it will be much more of a problem.

And Israel is threatened.

Prior to 1945 about 100k Jews immigrated to Palestine. The British who controlled Palestine at the time were fine with that.

There were already tensions between the richer Jews and the poor Palestinians.

1945, millions of Jewish refugees washed up on Palestinian shores. There were enough Jews to make a country now.

1948 a great war was fought between the Palestinians and their allies, the Arabs, and Israel. Israel won.

Israel would go on to win more wars.

Arabs really hate Israel, Iranians too.

Israel is at the center of the whole Middle East problem.
Click to expand...

No. Oil, sectarianism and tribalism are at the center of the Middle East problem. Israel is a sideshow. By that I mean, if Israel ceased to exist tomorrow, the governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran would still hate each other and would engage in proxy wars with one another.
 
Last edited:
Democrats in the House voted that in their opinion the Iranian military should be able to kill any Americans and anyone else, and attack the USA anywhere in the world including in the USA - with our military outlawed from defending the USA, Americans or even themselves - while reciting every talking point of the Supreme Leader of Iran.

Therefore, it is 100% predictable the Democratic Party will increasingly demand that all of the M.E. and all surrounding regions should be given to Iran, Russia and China since that is who the new Fascist Democratic Party is in alliance and collusion with.
 
swing_voter said:
Oil might have a bit to do with it. Rich countries can always buy oil when they need to, as they are buying oil right now.

Mostly it's that if you let those countries fall into chaos, it will be much more of a problem.

And Israel is threatened.

Prior to 1945 about 100k Jews immigrated to Palestine. The British who controlled Palestine at the time were fine with that.

There were already tensions between the richer Jews and the poor Palestinians.

1945, millions of Jewish refugees washed up on Palestinian shores. There were enough Jews to make a country now.

1948 a great war was fought between the Palestinians and their allies, the Arabs, and Israel. Israel won.

Israel would go on to win more wars.

Arabs really hate Israel, Iranians too.

Israel is at the center of the whole Middle East problem.
Click to expand...

No it's not. Israel is how totalitarian secular thugs divert the population from all that their dictators steal for themselves while they are impoverished and oppressed. They were all killing each other centuries before the nation of Israel even existed.
 
jpn said:
The author, Martin Indyk, has been deeply involved in the Middle East for decades, serving roles under both Presidents Clinton and Obama.
Click to expand...

That is reason enough to not to take his advice on anything - ever.
 
In past decades it was to guarantee a steady oil supply. Now that we don’t need Mid East Oil, our interests there are to contain ISIS, prevent and contain a nuclear Iran and promote general stability.

Also to support Israel because of the strong Jewish lobby in the USA. Israel is also a strategic ally and steward of the Holy Sites of Christianity. Israel has some cultural similarities with the USA. The Arab and Persian countries do not and are viewed suspiciously or simply not understood very well. Islam is also not understood well with the moderate voices not heard very often.
 
swing_voter said:
Israel is at the center of the whole Middle East problem.
Click to expand...

Oversimplification, IMO. It's a key ingredient. But so is the Sunni/Shiite split. So is oil. So is water. It's a really toxic place.
 
joko104 said:
Democrats in the House voted that in their opinion the Iranian military should be able to kill any Americans and anyone else, and attack the USA anywhere in the world including in the USA - with our military outlawed from defending the USA, Americans or even themselves - while reciting every talking point of the Supreme Leader of Iran.
Click to expand...

Why even post silly **** like this? Do you ever want to discuss issues like an adult? Or is this really the best you can do?
 
cpwill said:
Thanks to Fracking, that is correct. It would be of interest to me if we could get any of our forum's lefter-leaning folks to agree that this industry is what can help them achieve their foreign policy preferences, and that harming the first harms the latter.
Or, for that matter, if any Democrat Presidential candidates are willing to admit that. I rather doubt that, however, as it would be a bit of an unforced error; forcing their base to confront an inconvenient reality.
Meantime, Mr Indyk has a relatively recent example to draw on: The U.S. followed his current advice back in 2012, and pulled out of Iraq. How'd that work out? Everything been Hunky Dory over there since?
Click to expand...

Will everything be hunky dory over there ever? Does our presence there help or hinder stability?

As to fracking, Democrats in Congress have supported it in the states where it's located because it's some jobs (though not many) and tax revenue. But it's also just continuing our addiction to a practice that's causing great harm to the climate, so while it's great to have some energy dependence, it's gotta be seen as only temporary.

Here's some data I found. We are close, but not completely free of imports altogether.
In 2018, the United States produced1 about 17.7 million barrels of petroleum per day (MMb/d), and it consumed2 about 20.5 MMb/d. Imports from other countries help to supply domestic demand for petroleum.
U.S. reliance on petroleum imports has declined in recent years.
Share of imports from OPEC and Persian Gulf countries has declined, while the share of imports from Canada has increased.
The five largest sources of U.S. petroleum imports by percent share of total petroelum imports in 2018 were:
Canada 43%
Saudi Arabia 9%
Mexico 7%
Venezuela 6%
Iraq 5%
Click to expand...
 
jpn said:
Will everything be hunky dory over there ever? Does our presence there help or hinder stability?
Click to expand...

Well, you tell me - we tried this plan in 2012. How'd it work out?

As to fracking, Democrats in Congress have supported it in the states where it's located because it's some jobs (though not many) and tax revenue. But it's also just continuing our addiction to a practice that's causing great harm to the climate, so while it's great to have some energy dependence, it's gotta be seen as only temporary.
Click to expand...

While I disagree with your particular take on that, I'm assuming you are therefore in favor of dramatically expanding our nuclear capability?
 
cpwill said:
While I disagree with your particular take on that, I'm assuming you are therefore in favor of dramatically expanding our nuclear capability?
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, yes I am. Nuclear waste storage is a more tractable problem than radically altering our atmosphere. And I'm skeptical that wind, solar and hydro alone will be able to replace oil and coal.

But even that won't be sufficient. We need a crash research program on carbon recapture while also investigating aerosols. Expecting people to make the massive, lifestyle-changing sacrifices necessary to address this problem is Pollyannish. Especially in the developing world where changing their lifestyles includes lifesaving improvements--like air conditioners in sweltering India.
 
jpn said:
As a matter of fact, yes I am. Nuclear waste storage is a more tractable problem than radically altering our atmosphere. And I'm skeptical that wind, solar and hydro alone will be able to replace oil and coal.
Click to expand...

I like this simply on anti-fragility grounds. We ought not be overly dependent on any particular source of energy, if we can avoid it.

But even that won't be sufficient. We need a crash research program on carbon recapture while also investigating aerosols. Expecting people to make the massive, lifestyle-changing sacrifices necessary to address this problem is Pollyannish. Especially in the developing world where changing their lifestyles includes lifesaving improvements--like air conditioners in sweltering India.
Click to expand...

Yup. I'm generally fairly skeptical of the "all the third world's problems are the first world's fault" approach, but, they are right when they point out that we sure are swift to protect our own standard of living while arguing that - for the good of the planet - we need to deny them the ability to raise theirs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom